SEP  26  1921 


BX  8385    .R4  M4 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church 

Joint  Commission  on 
Joint  commission  on 

iinif  ir<atinn    r\  f  tho 


Digitized  by 

the  Internet  Archive 

in  2014 

https://archive.org/details/jointcommissiono03meth 


JOINT  COMMISSION 
ON  UNIFICATION 

,  OF  THE 

V 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church 

AND  THE 

Methodist  Episcopal  ^S5**""^ 
Church,  South  Sep  26 192: 


VOLUME  III 

Proceedings  at  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  April  10-13, 
1918;  at  Cleveland,  Ohio,  July  7-10, 
1919;  at  Louisville,  Ky.,  Jan- 
uary  15-20,  1920 

ALSO 

Report  Submitted  by  the  Ad  Interim  Committee, 
Richmond,  Va.,  November  7,  1919 


THE  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN 
New  York        Chicago  Cincinnati 


PUBLISHING  HOUSE  M.  E.  CHURCH,  SOUTH 
Nashville  Dallas  Richmond 


Copyright,  1920 

BY 

The  Methodist  Book  Concern 
and 

Smith  &  Lamar 


The  proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  have  been  compiled 
from  the  official  minutes  and  from  the  stenographic  report  of 
the  speeches  as  revised  by  each  speaker. 

A.  W.  Harris, 
Frank  M.  Thomas, 

Secretaries. 

February  10,  1920. 


COMMISSION  ON  UNIFICATION  OF  THE  METH- 
ODIST EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


Bishops 

Earl  Cranston,  Washington,  D.  C. 
John  W.  Hamilton,  Washington,  D.  C. 
William  F.  McDowell,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Frederick  D.  Leete,  Atlanta,  Ga. 
Richard  J.  Cooke,  Helena,  Mont. 

Ministers 

Edgar  Blake,  Chicago,  111. 
David  G.  Downey,  New  York,  N.  Y. 
John  F.  Goucher,  Baltimore,  Md. 
Robert  E.  Jones,  New  Orleans,  La. 
Albert  J.  Nast,  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 
Frank  NefT,  Hutchinson,  Kans. 
Edwin  M.  Randall,  Everett,  Wash. 
Claudius  B.  Spencer,  Kansas  City,  Mo. 
Joseph  W.  Van  Cleve,  Chicago,  111. 
John  J.  Wallace,  Pittsburgh,  Pa. 

Laymen 

George  Warren  Brown,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 
Charles  W.  Fairbanks,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 
Abram  W.  Harris,  Secretary,  New  York,  N.  Y. 
Charles  W.  Kinne,  Jacksonville,  Fla. 
Irvine  G.  Penn,  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 
Ira  E.  Robinson,  Charleston,  W.  Va. 
Henry*  Wade  Rogers,  New  York,  N.  Y. 
William  Rule,  Knoxville,  Tenn. 
Alex.  Simpson,  Jr.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Rolla  V.  Watt,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 


COMMISSION  ON  UNIFICATION  OF  THE  METHOD- 
IST EPISCOPAL  CHURCH,  SOUTH 


Bishops 

Warren  A.  Candler,  Atlanta,  Ga. 
E.  E.  Hoss,  Muskogee,  Okla. 
Collins  Denny,  Richmond,  Va. 
Edwin  D.  Mouzon,  Dallas,  Tex. 
W.  B.  Murrah,  Memphis,  Tenn. 

Ministers 

Frank  M.  Thomas,  Secretary,  Louisville,  Ky. 

W.  J.  Young,  Atlanta,  Ga. 

John  M.  Moore,  Nashville,  Tenn. 

C.  M.  Bishop,  Georgetown,  Tex. 

E.  B.  Chappell,  Nashville,  Tenn. 

T.  N.  Ivey,  Nashville,  Tenn. 

A.  F.  Watkins,  Jackson,  Miss. 

H.  M.  Du  Bose,  Nashville,  Tenn. 

W.  N.  Ainsworth,  Savannah,  Ga. 

A.  J.  Lamar,  Nashville,  Tenn. 

Laymen 

M.  L.  Walton,  Woodstock,  Va. 
H.  N.  Snyder,  Spartanburg,  S.  C. 
P.  D.  Maddin,  Nashville,  Tenn. 
R.  S.  Hyer,  Dallas,  Tex. 
J.  H.  Reynolds,  Conway,  Ark. 
R.  E.  Blackwell,  Ashland,  Va. 
T.  D.  Samford,  Opelika,  Ala. 
J.  R.  Pepper,  Memphis,  Tenn. 
E.  C.  Reeves,  Johnson  City,  Tenn. 
H.  H.  White,  Alexandria,  La. 


RESERVE  MEMBERS 


Methodist  Episcopal  Church 

Bishop  Luther  B.  Wilson,  New  York,  N.  Y. 
Rev.  Charles  M.  Stuart,  D.D.,  Evanston,  111. 
James  R.  Joy,  New  York,  N.  Y. 
Charles  A.  Pollock,  Fargo,  N.  Dak. 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South 

Bishop  James  Atkins,  Waynesville,  N.  C. 
Rev.  W.  Asbury  Christian,  Richmond,  Va. 
Rev.  E.  V.  Regester,  Alexandria,  Va. 
Rev.  C.  H.  Briggs,  Springfield,  Mo. 
Edward  W.  Hines,  Louisville,  Ky. 
G.  T.  Fitzhugh,  Memphis,  Tenn. 


I 


PROCEEDINGS  AT  ST.  LOUIS,  MO., 
APRIL  10-13,  1918 


FIRST  DAY,  WEDNESDAY,  APRIL  10,  1918. 


The  meeting  was  called  to  order  at  10  a.m.,  April  10,  by  Bish- 
op Collins  Denny,  in  the  Sunday  school  room  of  Centenary  M.  E. 
Church,  South. 

The  devotional  exercises  were  conducted  by  Rev.  David  G. 
Downey. 

The  hymn,  "All  hail  the  power  of  Jesus'  name,"  was  sung. 
Prayer  was  offered  by  Rev.  David  G.  Downey. 
The  hymn,   "Come,   thou   Fount  of   every   blessing,"  was 
sung. 

The  roll  was  called,  and  the  following  Commissioners  an- 
swered present :  Bishops  E.  E.  Hoss,  Collins  Denny,  E.  D.  Mou- 
zon,  W.  B.  Murrah,  J.  W.  Hamilton,  W.  F.  McDowell,  F.  D. 
Leete,  R.  J.  Cooke.  Ministers  :  F.  M.  Thomas,  W.  J.  Young, 
J.  M.  Moore,  C.  M.  Bishop,  E.  B.  Chappell,  T.  N.  Ivey,  A.  F. 
Watkins,  H.  M.  Du  Bose,  W.  N.  Ainsworth,  A.  J.  Lamar,  Edgar 
Blake,  D.  G.  Downey,  J.  F.  Goucher,  R.  E.  Jones,  A.  J.  Nast, 
Frank  Neff,  E.  M.  Randall,  C.  B.  Spencer,  J.  W.  Van  Cleve, 
J.  J.  Wallace.  Laymen:  M.  L.  Walton,  P.  D.  Maddin,  R.  S. 
Hyer,  J.  H.  Reynolds,  R.  E.  Blackwell,  J.  R.  Pepper,  E.  C. 
Reeves,  H.  H.  White,  E.  W.  Hines,  G.  W.  Brown,  A.  W.  Harris, 
C.  W.  Kinne,  I.  G.  Penn,  Alex.  Simpson,  Jr.,  Rolla  V.  Watt, 
J.  R.  Joy,  C.  A.  Pollock.   Rev.  C.  M.  Stuart,  alternate. 

Frank  M.  Thomas:  Judge  Samford  wrote  me  last  week 
that  he  would  be  unable  to  be  present  on  account  of  official 
duties.  I  notified  the  next  alternate,  Mr.  E.  W.  Hines,  and  he  is 
present. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  He  takes  his  seat,  under 
the  rule,  unless  there  be  objection.  Is  there  any  objection? 
There  being  none,  he  takes  his  seat.  I  have  been  informed  by 
the  Secretary  that  a  committee  of  the  brethren  from  the  St. 
Louis  Churches  is  present  and  desires  to  make  a  statement  to 
the  Commission.  We  will  hear  from  those  brethren  without 
formality  of  a  motion  if  they  will  be  kind  enough  to  come  for- 
ward. 

Bishop  Denny  then  introduced  the  following  gentlemen  to  the 
Commission:  Dr.  E.  Combie  Smith,  Dr.  R.  L.  Russell,  Dr.  C. 
W.  Tadlock,  and  Mr.  Hanford  Crawford. 

Dr.  R.  L.  Russell:  We  of  the  border  cities,  where  Method- 
ism is  strongly  intrenched,  have  observed  with  delight  your 
proceedings  from  month  to  month  as  you  have  held  them  in  dif- 
ferent places,  and  are  delighted  that  you  are  now  our  guests 
in  this  city.   We  have  not  been  unmindful  of  the  burden  which 


io     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

we  have  imposed  upon  you  to  work  out  a  plan  of  union  for  the 
two  great  Methodisms  which  you  are  here  to  represent.  We  are 
also  mindful  of  the  fact  of  the  care  and  the  prayer  with  which 
you  have  undertaken  the  task,  and  we  want  you  to  know  that  we 
in  this  great  city  have  followed  you  with  our  prayers  and  with 
earnest  hope  that  you  may  find  some  way  for  us  to  stick  to- 
gether as  one  body  of  united  Methodism.  When  Mr.  Brown, 
who  is  our  representative  from  this  city,  and  whom  both  Meth- 
odisms claim  and  delight  to  honor,  brought  us  the  news  that 
you  were  to  meet  with  us.  we  felt  highly  honored,  and  since 
you  are  here  this  honor  is  realized.  We  come  to  you  from  the 
united  Methodisms  of  this  city,  in  which  there  are  about  fifty 
churches  and  a  little  short  of  twenty  thousand  members,  and 
ask  that  you  be  our  guests  this  evening  at  6:30  at  a  reception 
at  Moolah  Temple,  where  we  trust  fifteen  hundred  of  our  people 
will  greet  you  and  be  your  hosts.  This  is  an  honor  which  we 
crave  and  trust  you  will  find  in  your  heart  not  to  deny  us.  Mr. 
Crawford,  who  represents  the  laity  of  both  Churches,  I  am  cer- 
tain would  like  to  second  the  invitation,  and  I  shall  be  pleased 
for  him  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Hanford  Crawford :  I  wish  it  were  entirely  true  that 
you  were  our  guests  in  toto  during  your  stay  here ;  but  for  the 
short  time  that  we  are  privileged  to  have  you  as  our  guest,  I 
am  sure  that  Dr.  Russell  has  fallen  short  of  expressing  even 
what  he  wanted  to  of  the  cordiality  and  sincerity  of  welcome 
that  comes  to  you  from  the  Methodism  of  this  neighborhood. 
The  place  of  the  reception  and  dinner  or  supper,  whatever  you 
choose  to  call  it,  that  will  be  given  to  you  by  the  fifteen  hundred 
people  is  Moolah  Temple.  Some  of  you  will  understand  the 
origin  of  the  name.  It  is  3821  Lindell  Boulevard.  For  fear 
some  of  you  may  be  tempted  to  stray  on  foot,  I  will  say  that  it 
can  be  reached  very  closely  by  any  of  the  Olive  Street  cars,  and 
is  just  between  here  and  the  hotel,  going  west.  It  is  the  wish  of 
the  committee  to  send  automobiles  for  the  entire  Commission 
and  for  the  ladies  of  your  familes  who  are  here,  at  such  hour  as 
you  may  decide.  We  would  suggest  that  you  be  ready  to  leave 
in  the  automobiles  at  6:15,  and  we  would  like  to  have  you  de- 
cide whether  it  would  be  from  here  or  from  the  hotel.  If  from 
the  hotel,  you  are  divided  into  fifty  rooms,  and  I  need  only  to 
mention  that  fact  to  illustrate  that  it  will  be  necessary  for  you 
to  exercise  a  little  extra  care  that  no  one  be  lost  when  we  are 
ready  to  start.  I  have,  therefore,  asked  both  Dr.  Thomas  and 
Dr.  Harris,  who,  I  have  been  given  to  understand,  are  the  shep- 
herds of  this  flock  as  far  as  care  is  concerned,  that  they  will 
kindly  see  that  everybody  who  is  going  is  taken  care  of  and  will 
notify  the  automobiles.    I  shall  leave  with  Dr.  Thomas  now 


St.  Louis  Meeting  n 


enough  simple  badges  marked  "Commission."  My  only  pur- 
pose in  that  is  that  you  will  not  be  mixed  up  with  the  ordinary 
crowd  in  the  city  of  St.  Louis.  We  have  designated  Mr.  Brown 
for  the  evening  as  something  apart  from  us;  but  Mrs.  Brown 
takes  her  place  with  the  rest  of  us,  and  Mr.  Brown  goes  with 
you.  He  must  wear  this  badge.  He  cannot  wear  the  St.  Louis 
badge  for  to-night ;  but  you  can  see  that  in  this  large  group, 
this  catch-as-catch-can,  this  Greco-Roman  wrestling  match,  we 
desire  that  fifty  in  round  numbers  of  people  who  are  our  honored 
guests  may  be  kept  somewhat  apart  from  the  crowd.  Such  has 
been  the  demand  for  tickets  that  I  am  very  sorry  to  say  that  I 
could  not  get  enough  tickets  this  morning  to  bring  here  for  you. 
I,  therefore,  by  direction  stamped  on  my  own  personal  card  the 
emblem  which  I  beg  you  to  use  this  first  evening.  It  cannot  be 
used  the  second  time.  I  regret  that  I  had  to  use  my  own  card, 
but  it  was  because  the  committee  found  it  impossible  to  get  other 
tickets  for  you.  Now  may  I  ask  two  or  three  things?  First, 
I  wish  to  know  how  many  of  you  there  are  and  how  many 
ladies  there  will  be  in  the  party,  and  when  and  where  the  auto- 
mobiles are  to  come  for  you.  At  the  hall  you  will  be  taken 
care  of,  and  arrangements  to  that  end  have  already  been  made, 
so  what  I  am  now  concerned  about  is  getting  you  there.  Dr. 
Smith  has  a  word  to  say  on  the  program,  but  before  I  make  way 
for  him  I  am  requested  by  the  trustees  of  Barnes  Hospital,  of 
this  city,  owned  by  the  Faculty  of  the  Washington  University 
Medical  School,  and,  barring  the  John  Hopkins  in  Baltimore, 
the  greatest  medical  school  found  in  the  United  States,  to  extend 
an  invitation*  to  the  Commission  through  me,  coming  direct 
from  the  Rev.  Dr.  J.  W.  Lee,  who  represents  the  Board  of 
Trustees,  for  luncheon  and  inspection  of  the  plant.  I  told  them 
that  the  only  possible  day  would  be  Saturday  and  that  it  might 
be  arranged  in  connection  with  what  is  projected,  a  supper 
Saturday  evening  for  the  members  of  the  Commission  and  a  few 
gentlemen  of  the  city  at  one  of  the  country  clubs.  It  occurred 
to  me  that  the  two  might  be  combined.  You  might  adjourn 
from  here  to  the  luncheon  at  the  Barnes  Hospital,  and  be  taken 
from  there  to  the  Country  Club  and  then  return.  That  is  for 
you  to  decide,  and  I  wish  for  you  to  express  your  decision  to 
Mr.  George  Warren  Brown,  who  is  here.  The  other  things  I 
would  ask  to  have  decided  immediately,  and  you  can  designate 
your  wishes  to  the  Secretary.  Dr.  Smith,  in  charge  of  the  pro- 
gram to-night,  has  a  word  to  say.  Let  me  first  say  that  if 
there  is  anything  else  that  the  Local  Committee,  which  has 
no  authority,  but  only  good  will,  can  do  for  your  comfort  while 
you  are  here,  you  have  only  to  command  us. 

Dr.  E.  Combie  Smith:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the 


12     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

Commission,  the  Committee  on  Program  does  not  design  that 
you  should  be  the  recipient  of  favors  without  an  opportunity 
of  expressing  your  appreciation.  We  have  therefore  assigned 
to  you,  if  it  be  your  pleasure,  the  duty  of  responding  to  four 
toasts.  The  time  allotted  to  each  speaker  is  not  to  exceed,  if 
possible,  the  limit  of  ten  minutes ;  and  these  are  the  topics  which, 
with  your  patience,  I  will  read:  "United  Methodism's  Response 
to  the  Call  of  Patriotism,"  "United  Methodism  and  the  New 
World  Order,"  "United  Methodism  and  World  Evangelism," 
"United  Methodism  in  an  Age  of  Efficiency."  If  it  be  possible, 
the  committee  would  consider  it  a  great  courtesy  if  some  of 
you  will  respond  to  these  toasts.  I  would  like  for  the  names 
of  those  who  are  to  respond  to  be  handed  to  me  at  as  early  a 
moment  as  possible,  in  order  that  they  may  be  inserted  on  the 
program,  which  halts  in  its  completion  awaiting  this  consumma- 
tion. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  What  is  the  pleasure  of  the 
Commission? 

John  M.  Moore:  I  move  that  we  accept  the  invitation  for  this 
evening  and  say  to  the  committee  that  we  will  be  ready  for 
them  at  the  hotel  at  6:15. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  There  is  another  invitation. 
What  disposition  is  desired  to  be  made  of  that? 

Edwin  M.  Randall :  I  move  that  the  Secretaries  be  made  a 
committee  for  arranging  the  responses  that  have  been  asked 
for  by  Dr.  Smith. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

E.  B.  Chappell :  I  do  not  see  how  we  can  determine  at  this 
moment  whether  we  can  accept  an  invitation  for  Saturday. 
That  matter  must  necessarily  be  postponed. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  I  hear  no  motion  relative 
to  that  matter. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  move — 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  rise  to  a  question  of  extraordinary  priv- 
ilege. I  know  that  we  will  suspend  everything  to  receive  Bishop 
Hoss.  If  he  will  come  forward,  I  will  present  him.  Some  of 
you  have  heard  of  him  and  all  will  be  delighted  to  become  ac- 
quainted with  him.    Brethren,  I  present  Bishop  Hoss. 

Bishop  Hoss :  I  have  come  again  to  join  the  Methodist  Church. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  Secretary  informs  me 
that  Bishop  Quayle  is  present.  If  he  will  come  forward,  I  shall 
take  pleasure  in  presenting  him. 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


13 


Bishop  Quayle  was  presented  to  the  Joint  Commission,  as 
was  also  Dr.  Albert  F.  Smith,  pastor  of  Centenary  Church. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  There  are  still  one  or  two 
preliminary  matters. 

Bishop  McDowell:  Dr.  Blake  had  the  floor  when  I  broke  in 
with  the  question  of  privilege. 

Edgar  Blake:  We  have  received  an  invitation  from  the  local 
committee  for  a  luncheon  Saturday  and  a  visit  to  the  Country 
Club.  It  seems  somewhat  early  yet  to  determine  whether  it 
would  be  possible  for  the  Commission  to  accept  that  invitation. 
I  am  sure  all  of  us  desire  to  do  so  if  we  find  it  practicable.  I 
move,  therefore,  that  the  Joint  Chairmen  and  the  Joint  Sec- 
retaries be  constituted  a  committee  to  report  on  that  at  the  prop- 
er time. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

John  M.  Moore:  I  move  that  the  hours  of  meeting  and  ad- 
journment of  this  Joint  Commission  be  from  9  a.m.  to  12  :30  p.m. 
in  the  morning  and  from  2:30  p.m.  to  5  p.m.  in  the  afternoon. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Is  not  nine  too  early  for 
the  meeting  under  this  Congressional  time? 

John  M.  Moore:  I  think  not. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  If  some  of  you  will  be  kind 
enough  to  get  Congress  to  appeal  to  the  signs  of  the  Zodiac  in 
addition  to  the  hands  of  the  clock,  it  will  accommodate  some  of 
us.  This  matter  of  the  time  is  getting  to  be  a  personal  matter 
with  some  of  us.  I  do  not  know  your  influence  in  Congress, 
but  if  you  have  any  I  trust  you  will  exercise  it. 

John  M.  Moore:  It  will  be  satisfactory  to  me  to  put  it  at 
9  :30  to  1. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  I  was  not  speaking  of  that. 
I  was  just  bound  to  go  off  on  this  clock  business  that  Con- 
gress has  been  dealing  with. 

John  M.  Moore:  It  is  suggested  that  I  make  the  hours  from 
9  to  12:30  and  2:30  to  adjourn  at  will. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  Is  it  too  late  to  offer  an  amendment? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  No. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  I  move  to  amend  by  making  the  hour  for 
morning  meeting  at  9:30.  I  appreciate  this  suggestion  of  the 
Chairman's. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  I  would  not  have  so  much 
force  given  to  my  suggestion. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  From  9:30  to  12:30,  three  hours,  is  enough. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  resulted 
in  a  tie  of  18  to  18. 


14     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

F.  M.  Thomas:  I  want  to  know  the  motion,  so  that  I  can 
vote  intelligently. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny):  The  motion  is  9  or  9:30. 
You  have  the  deciding  vote. 

F.  M.  Thomas:  I  will  make  it  9:30. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Nine-thirty  has  it. 

W.  N.  Ainsworth :  I  move  that  the  adjournment  will  be  at  1 
o'clock  instead  of  12:30. 

John  M.  Moore:  I  accept  that,  if  my  second  will. 

M.  L.  Walton :  I  seconded  your  other  motion,  and  I  accept 
this. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  motion  was  carried. 

W.  N.  Ainsworth :  Now  I  offer  another  amendment,  that  we 
meet  in  the  afternoon  at  3  o'clock,  instead  of  2  :30,  and  adjourn 
at  will. 

John  M.  Moore:  That  suits  me. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  motion  was  carried. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  What  is  the  next  business? 

F.  M.  Thomas :  The  Committee  on  Procedure  was  ordered  to 
prepare  a  program  for  this  meeting. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  I  remember  that  the  Com- 
mittee on  Procedure  was  called  at  Savannah — that  is,  there  was 
a  call  for  a  meeting  of  the  Committee  on  Procedure ;  and,  hav- 
ing been  elected  Chairman  of  that  Committee,  I  called  a  meet- 
ing here  yesterday.  I  regret  to  say  that  only  two  of  us  were 
present  and  I  heard  from  only  one  other  member  of  the  Com- 
mittee— namely,  Dr.  Blake.  Two  of  us  who  were  present  are 
prepared  to  report,  if  the  Commission  cares  to  hear  the  report 
of  two  men. 

Bishop  McDowell :  In  my  desire  to  be  present,  I  adjourned  an 
Annual  Conference  on  Monday  evening  at  half-past  five  to  take 
the  train  at  seven  o'clock,  and  I  got  here  last  night  at  eight  or 
nine  o'clock.  I  couldn't  get  through  any  faster.  I  am  sure  it 
would  be  the  pleasure  of  the  Commission  to  hear  the  report  of 
those  members  of  the  Committee  on  Procedure  who  were  able 
to  meet  yesterday. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  two  of  us  who  met  in 
accordance  with  the  announcement  made  at  Savannah  report 
that  we  continue  the  consideration  of  the  question  of  the  Status 
of  the  Negro ;  and  having  completed  that,  we  take  up  the  matter 
of  the  Judicial  Council ;  and  having  completed  that,  we  take  up 
the  question  of  Regional  Conferences.  The  report  is  in  your 
hands. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  I  seriously  question  the  wisdom  of  the  meth- 
od of  procedure  which  has  been  recommended  by  two  members 
of  the  Committee  on  Procedure.    It  is  of  great  importance  that 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


15 


we  should,  if  possible,  perfect  the  main  outlines  of  this  general 
plan  of  unification  that  we  have  been  working-  on.  We  should 
put  behind  us  everything  that  is  possible  for  us  to  put  behind 
us.  We  have  been  reminded  again  and  again  that  nothing  that 
we  have  done  here  has  been  finally  done,  but  that  everything 
has  been  adopted  tentatively.  Of  course,  many  of  our  people 
do  not  know  what  the  word  "tentatively"  means.  They  do  not 
know  that  evertyhing  that  has  been  adopted  tentatively  has 
been  adopted  by  a  show  of  hands  and  doubtless  by  a  majority 
of  each  Commission  voting  in  favor  of  it.  I  think  we  should 
limit  speeches  to  five  minutes  and  take  up  the  report  of  the 
Committee  on  Conferences.  The  first  report  that  we  should 
take  up  should  be  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Confer- 
ences. We  have  gone  so  far  with  that  report  that  it  will 
be  possible  for  us  in  a  short  time,  I  think,  to  perfect  it 
and  put  it  behind  us,  letting  it  be  adopted  by  the  Joint 
Commission  and  then  by  the  separate  Commissions,  accord- 
ing to  rule.  Then  I  would  suggest  that  we  take  up  next 
the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judicial  Council,  which  is 
nearly  perfected  if  I  mistake  not,  and  perfect  that;  and  then,  in 
whatsoever  time  may  remain,  I  suggest  that  we  take  up  the  re- 
port of  the  Committee  on  the  Status  of  the  Colored  Members  of 
the  Church  in  the  Reorganized  Church,  and,  if  possible,  com- 
plete that.  Therefore,  I  move  as  a  substitute  for  the  motion  be- 
fore us  that  we  take  up  first  of  all  the  report  of  the  Committee 
on  Conferences. 

The  motion  was  seconded. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  I  was  the  other  member  of  the  Committee  on 
Procedure  who  was  present  and  arranged  the  plan  announced 
by  Bishop  Denny.  It  seems  to  me  the  plan  we  suggest  is  the 
wisest  plan.  The  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  is  now  just  about  three  weeks  off.  If  we  are 
to  make  any  progress  at  all  at  this  time,  we  must  make  a  some- 
what definite  report  to  that  General  Conference.  Every  one 
recognizes  that  the  crucial  questions  before  us,  to  which  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  our  Church  will  want  an  answer,  are : 

1.  The  status  of  the  colored  membership  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  reorganized  Church. 

2.  The  boundaries  and  the  powers  of  the  Regional  Conferences. 

We  have  done  nothing  at  all  to  settle  those  two  questions.  We 
can  take  the  things  that  are  easy,  the  things  that  are  almost  en- 
tirely matters  of  detail,  and  settle  them ;  and  when  we  have 
consumed  the  time  of  the  session  in  settling  them,  we  will  not 
have  any  answer  to  the  question  which  is  in  the  minds  of  both 
Churches,  certainly  in  the  minds  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,   South,  is  the  prominent  question.     I  think  we  did 


1 6     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

wrong  in  the  beginning.  I  think  we  have  largely  wasted  three 
sessions  of  this  Commission  because  we  did  not  pursue  the 
policy  outlined  in  the  report  of  your  Committee  on  Order  and 
Procedure.  If  we  had  taken  up  first  the  most  difficult  questions, 
we  could  have  decided  long  since  whether  we  could  or  could  not 
agree  on  a  settlement  of  those  questions,  and  we  would  be  much 
farther  ahead  than  we  are  at  this  time.  With  all  respect  to  the 
judgment  of  Bishop  Mouzon,  to  adopt  the  substitute  that  he  has 
offered  will  be  simply  to  make  this  meeting  a  repetition  of  the 
meetings  which  have  preceded  it,  and  the  result  will  be  that  we 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  will  go  to  our 
General  Conference  with  a  vague,  misty  report,  which  means 
nothing  and  will  be  utterly  unsatisfactory.  I  trust  that  the  re- 
port of  the  Committee  on  Order  and  Procedure  will  be  adopted. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  should  have  been  present  at  the  meet- 
ing of  the  Committee,  but  it  was  absolutely  impossible,  for  the 
reasons  that  I  have  already  stated.  I  am  not  at  all  particular 
myself  as  to  which  of  these  two  orders  you  take.  I  am  will- 
ing to  begin  with  the  consideration  of  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Conferences,  with  the  understanding  that  we  are 
to  finish  it.  That  carries  with  it  the  whole  matter  of  the  power 
of  the  General  Conference,  the  powers  of  the  Regional  Con- 
ferences ;  and  the  geography  of  the  Regional  Conferences  car- 
ries with  it  inevitably  the  whole  question  of  the  episcopacies 
and  the  itineracy  in  the  episcopacies.  I  am  willing  to  take  that 
up  right  now  and  go  clear  through  it,  as  Bishop  Mouzon  has 
suggested ;  but  if  that  order  is  taken,  I  want  before  we  begin 
to  consider  it  to  agree  to  go  clear  through  also  with  the  status  of 
the  negro  in  the  reorganized  Church.  I  do  not  quite  under- 
stand Bishop  Mouzon  as  intimating  that  we  shall  in  such  time 
as  is  left  consider  that  subject,  although  those  were  not  the 
words  that  he  used. 

Bishop  Mouzon:  All  the  time  there  is. 

Bishop  McDowell :  There  are  certain  brethren  who  have  a 
minimum  of  time  to  spend  here,  and  I  do  not  want  the  status 
of  the  negro  left  as  an  unfinished  topic  by  this  session,  if  other 
topics  are  to  be  finished.  I  do  not  think  Bishop  Mouzon  sug- 
gested that,  but  there  might  be  that  inference  from  his  remark.  I 
am  not  particular  whether  we  shall  take  up  the  negro  first  and 
agree  or  disagree  on  that,  or  take  up  the  Conferences  and  agree 
or  disagree  on  that,  but  I  am  sure  that  we  ought  to  sit  until 
we  do  both  of  those  things  and  even-thing  involved  in  them  if 
we  do  anv  of  them.  If  we  complete  either,  we  should  complete 
all. 

A.  \V.  Harris :  I  move  that  we  now  go  into  executive  session. 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


*7 


The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

H.  M.  Du  Bose:  I  find  myself  in  hearty  agreement  with  the 
plan  of  procedure  proposed  by  the  committee.  I  had  intended 
to  offer  at  the  opening  session  this  morning  a  resolution  cover- 
ing that  point,  and  I  am  personally  prepared  with  this  morn- 
ing's session  to  take  up  the  order  indicated  by  the  committee,  and 
before  the  end  of  the  session  reach  a  definite  conclusion,  so  as  to 
make  a  motion  that  the  Commissions  have  separate  sessions 
and  that  each  Commission,  having  a  session  of  its  own, 
commit  its  statement  in  writing;  and  that  the  views  that  the 
Commission  may  definitely  express,  in  other  words,  the  ultimate 
of  all  that  cannot  be  done  on  this  crucial  question,  be  brought 
in  the  two  reports  together  and  see  if  they  can  be  reconciled 
— and  if  they  may  be  to  make  a  common  report  on  them,  and  if 
they  cannot  then  to  make  such  report  to  our  General  Confer- 
ences. That  was  in  my  mind,  and  I  was  prepared  to  move  it. 
I  put  myself  on  record  as  being  heartily  in  favor  of  this  order. 
I  am  also  heartily  in  favor  of  the  suggestion  which  has  been 
made,  and  I  trust  will  take  the  shape  of  a  motion — I  shall  make- 
it  myself  if  somebody  else  does  not — that  speeches  be  limited 
to  five  minutes  and  only  one  speech  from  each  member  during 
the  discussion.  Many  of  us  cannot  remain  over  Saturday  night. 
The  next  week  or  ten  days  will  be  full  of  work  for  us  who  are 
in  the  General  Conference  and  who  have  connectional  duties. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  I  indorse  everything  that  Dr.  Du  Bose  has 
said,  except  that  idea  of  separate  meetings  of  the  two  Com- 
missions. I  think  that  in  holding  separate  meetings  we  have 
lost  much  valuable  time.  I  want  these  matters  thrashed  out  in 
joint  session.  I  am  in'  favor  of  the  report  of  the  Committee  on 
Procedure.  I  believe  we  should  take  up  the  negro  question 
where  we  left  it  off  and  see  if  we  cannot  agree.  I  trust  the 
report  of  that  committee  will  be  adopted. 

E.  C.  Reeves:  Brethren,  I  belong  to  the  Judiciary  Commit- 
tee, and  cannot  settle  that  question  without  going  into  the  negro 
question.  There  is  hardly  any  question  before  us  but  that  some 
branch  of  it  touches  the  negro  question;  and  I,  therefore,  am 
in  favor  of  the  program  laid  out  by  the  Committee  on  Pro- 
cedure, that  we  settle  this  question  of  all  questions,  and  then, 
if  we  settle  that,  we  can  easily  settle  the  others. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  am  quite  in  sympathy  with  the  remark  made 
by  my  friend  Mr.  Watt  in  reference  to  going  into  separate 
sessions.  I  agree  with  him  that  we  have  lost  much  time  through 
that  method  of  procedure,  and  I  certainly  hope  that  the  Commis- 
sions at  this  early  stage  of  the  game  will  not  be  preparing  or 
presenting  any  ultimatum  to  each  other.  I  hope  that  will  not 
2 


1 8     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

come  at  any  time.  I  confess  that  to  my  mind  the  report  of  the 
committee  does  not  appear  to  be  the  best  method  for  us  to  fol- 
low. We  devoted  practically  all  the  time,  with  the  exception  of 
two  working  days,  at  Savannah  to  the  consideration  of  the 
negro  question  and  did  not  settle  it.  There  are  other  mat- 
ters that  are  quite  as  fundamental  to  the  success  of  any 
plan  we  may  propose  as  the  status  of  the  negro  member- 
ship in  the  reorganized  Church.  From  my  point  of  view  I  be- 
lieve there  is  a  more  logical  course  for  us  to  follow.  I  think 
all  of  you  have  this  printed  outline,  prepared  and  sent  out  by 
the  committee,  which  gives  you  the  foundation  upon  which  to 
build  this  work. 

Bishop  Hoss :  I  shall  be  glad  if  that  plan  is  discussed.  Per- 
haps I  might  understand  it  then ;  I  hope  I  shall  be  able  to ;  I 
have  not  heretofore. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  want  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  there 
are  certain  unfinished  items  in  this  report.  It  seems  to  me  it 
would  be  wiser,  and  we  should  get  along  faster,  if  we  would 
take  up  the  unfinished  items  in  this  printed  plan  and  proceed 
with  them.  That  would  make  the  first  item  for  our  considera- 
tion the  boundaries  or  areas  of  these  Regional  Conferences.  I 
am  certain  that  this  is  a  very  vital  question,  and  one  upon  which 
it  is  necessary  for  us  to  reach  an  agreement — an  agreement  of 
such  nature  as  will  commend  itself  to  both  of  our  executive 
bodies.  I  doubt  if  there  is  in  the  entire  plan  any  item  more 
fundamental  than  this  one.  Up  to  the  present  time  it  has  had 
no  consideration  whatever  by  this  Joint  Commission.  It  was  be- 
fore us  at  Traverse  City,  but  was  postponed  in  order  that  the 
Joint  Commission  might  have  more  time  to  study  the  plan.  I 
do  not  believe  we  should  postpone  this  item  until  the  last  in 
the  procedure  of  this  meeting.  I  am  certain  you  will  be  in  trou- 
ble if  you  do  so.  If  you  discuss  this  item,  you  will  come  to  the 
status  of  the  negro  and  then  to  the  Judicial  Council;  and  I 
believe  if  we  were  to  take  this  plan  here  and  consider  the  unfin- 
ished items  in  order  and  go  through  with  them,  we  should  make 
haste  and  we  should  do  a  better  piece  of  work  than  if  we  take 
a  little  here  and  a  little  there,  and  something  somewhere  else, 
without  reference  to  logical  development  and  coordination.  I, 
therefore,  move  as  an  amendment,  or  substitute,  that  we  take  up 
the  unfinished  items  in  the  printed  plan  in  their  order. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  I  trust  that  the  Commission  will  not  mis- 
understand the  purpose  I  had  in  view  in  moving  a  substitute 
for  the  report  offered  by  the  Committee  on  Procedure.  I  do 
not  desire  to  back  off  from  this  question,  which  has  given  us  so 
much  concern  and  which  has  taken  up  so  much  of  our  time.  If 
I  made  use  of  the  words,  ''Then  in  so  much  of  our  time  as  may 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


19 


remain,  let  us  take  up  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Status 
of  the  Negro,"  I  made  use  of  unfortunate  language.  If  I 
were  to  let  that  language  stand,  I  should  suffer  myself  to  be  mis- 
understood. I  am  not  backing  off  from  that  question  of  the  status 
of  the  colored  man  in  the  reorganized  Church ;  but  what  I  desire, 
brethren,  and  I  hope  you  will  give  attention  at  this  point,  is 
that  we  may  have  opportunity  at  least  for  one  day,  to  associate 
one  with  the  other,  the  Southern  Commissioners  with  the  North- 
ern Commissioners,  and  to  talk  about  this  matter  somewhat, 
around  the  lobby  and  in  our  rooms,  in  order  that  we  may  dis- 
cover whether  or  not  we  are  to  take  very  seriously  what  has 
appeared  in  the  Church  press  since  our  meeting  in  Savannah. 
If  we  of  the  South  are  to  take  very  seriously  what  has  appeared 
in  the  press  of  the  Northern  Church,  and  if  you  of  the  North 
are  to  take  very  seriously  what  has  appeared  in  some  quarters 
in  the  Southern  Church  press,  a  very  critical  situation  has  de- 
veloped, and  personally  I  should  like  to  have  opportunity  at 
least  for  a  day  to  meet  my  brethren  of  the  Northern  Commis- 
sion and  talk  with  them  privately  before  we  take  up  the  dis- 
cussion of  this  matter.  I  believe  we  shall  make  haste  if  we  shall 
go  a  little  leisurely. 

Bishop  McDowell:  Why  not  talk  it  out  here? 

Bishop  Mouzon:  It  is  better  to  take  a  little  time  to  talk 
these  matters  over  between  ourselves  before  talking  in  public. 
"Why  not  talk  it  out  here?"  Somehow  or  other,  I  always 
make  better  headway  when  I  talk  with  Bishop  McDowell  in 
private  than  when  I  talk  with  him  in  public.  That  is  why  I 
am  urging  just  a  little  delay  in  taking  this  up,  that  we  may 
have  opportunity  to  see  just  where  we  stand  before  we  go  fur- 
ther with  it.  I  am  not  backing  off  from  it,  but  endeavoring  to 
approach  it  in  the  wisest  and  best  way.  I  do  not  object  to  Dr. 
Blake's  motion  at  all. 

Bishop  Hoss  took  the  chair  as  presiding  officer. 

Bishop  Denny:  For  about  two  weeks,  every  day  at  Savan- 
nah we  discussed  the  important  and  delicate  question  of 
the  status  of  the  negro  in  the  proposed  reorganized  Meth- 
odist Church.  The  discussion  was  supposed  to  be  com- 
pleted until  nearly  every  one  in  the  Commission  had  spoken. 
Everything  was  done  except  to  vote.  We  did  not  get  to  vote. 
It  seemed  to  the  two  of  us  who  were  here  that,  having  discussed 
that  matter,  the  wisest  thing  the  Commission  would  do  was  to 
proceed  to  vote  on  that  matter.  Dr.  Blake's  view  of  logic  does 
not  agree  with  mine.  I  do  not  say  mine  is  correct,  but  I  just 
lack  the  ability  to  see  how  it  is  more  logical  to  discuss  a  ques- 
tion up  to  the  point  of  action  and  then  sheer  off  and  take  up 
another  question  and  discuss  it.    In  addition  to  that  fact — and 


20     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

I  do  not  desire  to  take  up  your  time  more  than  to  state  the 
grounds  on  which  we  bring  this  report  before  you — at  every 
point  in  every  question  we  discussed  we  met  this  question, 
and  really  we  have  settled  nothing  until  we  have  settled  this 
question.  If  we  are  to  make  any  headway  at  all,  we  must  see 
whether  it  is  possible  for  us  to  reach  an  agreement  on  the  status 
of  the  negro  in  the  reorganized  Church.  That  being  the  case, 
the  committee  presents  this  report  to  you.  Dr.  Lamar  has  al- 
ready called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  General  Conference  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  is  just  three  weeks 
off.  Some  of  us  have  met  here  at  very  grave  inconvenience. 
I  do  not  know  when  I  spent  a  costlier  day  than  I  spent  yester- 
day, not  to  meet  those  who  were  to  meet  and  not  to  have  word 
that  they  would  not  be  here.  The  College  of  Bishops  of  our 
Church  is  to  meet,  with  much  business  before  it.  The  Board  of 
Education  is  to  meet,  the  Board  of  Missions  is  to  meet,  the 
Board  of  Church  Extension  is  to  meet ;  some  of  us  are  mem- 
bers of  all  those  Boards,  and  all  this  must  take  place  before 
the  General  Conference.  While  heretofore  we  have  remained  to 
the  end  of  the  meeting,  at  this  time  we  shall  be  forced  to  leave 
within  a  few  days;  and  so,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  we  are 
confined  to  a  very  few  days  here  by  the  necessities  of  the 
case,  that  we  have  discussed  the  whole  question  up  to  the  point 
of  exhaustion  of  the  time  allowed,  that  nothing  remains  except 
to  see  if  we  can  agree  on  the  vote,  your  committees  should  give 
you  the  report.  In  our  judgment  it  is  best  to  continue  until 
we  can  see  whether  we  can  settle  this  question.  If  we  lay  it 
aside,  we  have  not  reached  a  practical  settlement  on  anything, 
no  matter  what  we  would  do  with  the  report  of  the  Committee 
on  Conferences. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr.:  I  am  in  the  uncomfortable  situation  that 
I  agree  with  Bishop  Denny's  logic,  but  with  Dr.  Blake's  con- 
clusion. The  difficulty  is  not  in  the  logic  of  Dr.  Blake,  nor  in 
your  logic,  but  lack  of  logic  in  the  action  of  the  Commission  that 
started  in  to  debate  and  consider  the  question  of  the  report  of 
the  Committee  on  Conferences.  We  go  on  to  that,  then  we 
leave  it  unfinished  and  shift  to  the  Judicial  Council.  We  go  on 
to  certain  points  of  that  and  leave  it  unfinished,  then  shift  to  the 
status  of  the  negro,  and  that  is  just  exactly  the  position  this 
Commission  is  in  to-day.  We  have  debated  at  great  length 
every  one  of  those  three  reports  and  have  not  finished  any  of 
them.  Bishop  Mouzon  takes  exactly  the  right  position.  What 
we  should  aim  at,  even  if  it  comes  to  pass  that  the  whole  of  our 
work  cannot  be  finished,  even  if  it  comes  to  pass  that  the  question 
of  the  status  of  the  negro  be  an  unsettled  matter  so  far  as  the 
Commission  is  concerned,  I  still  think  if  we  would  dispose  of  all 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


21 


the  other  matters  here  and  if  your  Commission  should  go  be- 
fore your  General  Conference  and  our  Commission  go  before 
our  General  Conference  and  say,  "We  have  disposed  of  every 
subject  which  came  before  the  Joint  Commission  for  its  examina- 
tion save  and  except  only  the  question  of  the  status  of  the  negro 
in  the  reorganized  Church,"  we  put  the  test  upon  the  General 
Conferences  of  both  Churches  and  upon  the  membership  of 
both  Churches  to  find  a  solution  of  the  one  thing  that  stands  in 
the  way  of  a  unified  Church.  If  this  Commission  were  to  agree 
upon  all  the  matters  arising  here  out  of  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Conferences  and  of  the  Committee  on  Judicial  Coun- 
cil, and  should  finally  agree  upon  all  these  points,  yet  disagree 
upon  the  status  of  the  negro,  I  think  that  we  shall  have  made  a 
vast  step  forward,  and  the  common,  everyday  membership  of 
our  Church  standing  back  of  us  will  force  us,  whether  we  will 
or  not,  to  agree  to  the  settlement  of  that  one  crucial  question. 
That  is  the  situation  I  want  to  get  the  Commission  in.  All 
along  I  have  said  that  if  we  can  clear  up  everything  else,  and 
all  be  under  the  stress  of  doing  this  one  thing,  it  will  bring 
a  result  that  can  be  brought  about  in  no  other  way.  The 
other  members  get  up  and  say  that  the  question  of  the  juris- 
diction and  boundaries  of  the  Regional  Conferences  is  unde- 
cided, and  that  is  tied  up  with  the  Status  of  the  Negro;  and 
they  find  an  excuse  not  to  vote  on  the  status  of  the  negro,  but 
would  be  compelled  to  vote  if  that  were  out  of  the  way.  You 
all  know  that.  You  are  talking  in  the  corridors  of  the  hotel  and 
in  private  conversations  and  in  your  rooms,  and  the  statements 
are  made  that  this  question  of  the  boundaries  of  the  Regional 
Conferences  means  keeping  the  two  Churches  apart  just  as 
before.  I  do  not  believe  that  is  so.  I  want  to  get  a  vote  of  the 
Commission  upon  that  thing.  Let  us  face  the  facts  that  we  of 
the  North  are  not  afraid  to  trust  you  of  the  South  in  Regional 
Conferences  where  you  have  all  the  territory,  and  you  are  not 
afraid  to  trust  us  of  the  North  in  Regional  Conferences  in  the 
territory  where  we  have  it  all.  Let  us  get  rid  of  the  little 
element  of  this  fuss,  which  seems  to  exist  in  spite  of  every- 
thing we  have  done  and  can  do  until  we  finish  those  things 
and  get  them  out  of  the  way,  and  feel  that  we  are  here  as 
God's  children  to-day  trusting  one  another  the  same  as  we 
would  trust  our  own  brothers,  for  after  all  we  are  members 
of  the  same  Church,  we  are  the  younger  brothers  of  Jesus 
Christ;  and  if  we  cannot  find  a  solution  of  these  problems  it 
is  a  mighty  sad  thing  for  the  sister  Churches  represented  by  the 
members  of  this  Commission,  and  for  that  reason  I  am  in  favor 
of  Bishop  Mouzon's  motion. 

H.  M.  Du  Bose :  I  move  the  previous  question. 


22     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 
The  motion  was  seconded. 

Joseph  W.  Van  Cleve:  Will  you  tell  us  the  parliamentary 
situation,  Mr.  Chairman? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  question  is  perfectly 
proper,  of  course,  otherwise  it  would  not  have  been  asked.  The 
Committee  on  Procedure  reported  a  suggestion  for  an  order  for 
the  Commission,  that  the  first  thing  to  be  taken  up  should  be 
the  status  of  the  negro  in  the  reorganized  Church,  then  the 
Judicial  Council,  then  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Confer- 
ences. Bishop  Mouzon  moved  as  a  substitute  that  we  reverse 
that  order  and  take  up  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Con- 
ferences, then  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Judicial  Coun- 
cil, and  then  the  status  of  the  negro.  The  question  has  been 
called  for. 

C.  M.  Bishop:  Was  not  there  a  substitute  offered  by  Dr. 
Blake? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  It  was  not  seconded. 
George  Warren  Brown:  It  was  not? 
The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  No,  it  was  not. 
Joseph  W.  Van  Cleve:  I  wanted  to  second  it — 
The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny):  But  did  you? 
Joseph  W.  Van  Cleve:  No. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  It  was  not  seconded. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  question  was  ordered. 

A  further  vote  being  taken,  the  substitute  offered  by  Bishop 
Mouzon  was  carried  by  a  vote  of  20  to  14. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  I  now  move  that  speakers  be  limited  to  five 
minutes. 

The  motion  was  seconded. 

H.  M.  Du  Bose :  Do  you  not  mean  also  to  include  that  a  second 
speech  may  not  be  made  by  the  same  speaker  unless  the  floor 
is  unclaimed? 

Bishop  Mouzon :  I  am  under  the  impression  that  we  have 
such  a  rule  already.  I  did  not  make  the  motion,  because  I 
think  we  have  that  rule  already. 

H.  M.  Du  Bose:  All  right. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  I  hope  you  will  not  regard 
it  as  impertinent,  but  may  I  say  to  you  that  good  Constitutions  are 
scarcely  ever  made  when  speakers  are  limited  to  five  minutes? 

Edgar  Blake:  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  first  item  in  the 
report  of  the  Committee  on  Conferences,  the  area  and  bounda- 
ries of  the  Regional  Conferences,  is  so  important,  and  up  to 
the  present  time  no  discussion  or  time  has  been  given  to  that, 
I  wish  to  move  a  ten-minute  rule  to  apply  to  that  item  and 
then  a  five-minute  rule  to  apply  to  the  items  that  follow  which 
have  been  discussed  at  some  length  before.   There  are  members 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


23 


here  who  desire  to  speak  on  that  first  item  and  cannot  do  it 
properly  in  five  minutes. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  It  will  require  an  amend- 
ment.  Is  that  motion  seconded? 

The  motion  was  seconded. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  I  am  entirely  willing  to  accept  Dr.  Blake's 
amendment  if  my  second  will  accept  it. 
The  second  accepted. 

M.  L.  Walton :  I  want  to  make  a  statement  against  the  pend- 
ing motion.  Let  us  not  have  exceptions ;  let  us  have  general 
rules.  Certain  people  think  one  thing  is  more  important  and 
others  think  something  else  is  more  important.  If  we  keep  on 
making  exceptions,  we  shall  soon  have  all  exceptions  and  no 
general  rules.  I  think  we  can  settle  all  of  this  in  discussions 
under  the  five-minute  rule.  One  person  might  not  cover  the 
whole  field,  but  between  us  all  we  will  cover  the  whole  argu- 
ment and  probably  repeat  a  good  deal.  I  am  in  favor  of  the 
motion  originally  made,  that  we  observe  the  general  rule  of 
five  minutes  with  reference  to  all  these  matters  as  they  may 
come  up,  and  make  no  exceptions  to  that  rule.  Otherwise  we 
shall  have  exceptions  and  no  rule  of  limitation  on  time.  To 
this  I  am  opposed. 

Bishop  Hoss:  I  think  an  exception  should  be  made  in  my 
favor,  as  I  have  not  been  able  to  make  my  speeches,  and  if  I 
don't  get  them  out  before  this  session  of  this  Commission  I 
don't  know  that  I  ever  shall. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  I  would  move  that  all  time  limit  be  taken 
from  Bishop  Hoss. 

F.  M.  Thomas:  I  feel  a  delicacy  in  speaking,  although  I 
have  spoken  little  in  the  general  meetings.  I  think  we  make  a 
mistake  to  limit  speeches  to  five  minutes.  To  come  down  to 
the  last  meeting  and  limit  speeches  to  five  minutes  on  these  im- 
portant questions  is  a  mistake.  I  believe  in  the  enforcement  of 
the  ten-minute  rule.  I  was  in  favor  of  that  at  Savannah,  but 
it  hardly  seems  wise  for  gentlemen  who  have  exhausted  them- 
selves speaking  at  great  length  to  limit  gentlemen  who  have  not 
spoken  at  all.  Now,  this  is  not  said  in  pleasantry,  but  in  all 
seriousness,  and  after  reading  over  all  of  these  speeches  dur- 
ing the  past  two  months  I  have  seen  that  there  must  be  a  won- 
derful orientation  of  views  if  we  are  to  arrive  at  agreements 
upon  these  questions  about  which  there  is  such  a  profound  dif- 
ference. I  do  not  know  that  any  one  can  be  convinced ;  but 
certainly,  as  Bishop  Denny  says,  five  minutes  is  too  little  time 
to  give  to  it  if  a  man  wants  to  make  a  worthy  deliverance  on 
the  question.    I  do  not  say  that  I  am  going  to  offend  you  with  a 


24     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


speech,  but  I  am  opposed  to  applying  the  five-minute  rule  at 
this  time. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  In  discussing  the  geography 
and  the  boundaries  of  the  Regional  Conferences,  the  five-minute 
rule  does  not  apply. 

E.  B.  Chappell:  The  ten-minute  rule  applies? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  That  is  the  general  rule. 

Bishop  Leete :  You  mean  that  in  discussing  the  whole  ques- 
tion of  Regional  Conferences,  their  boundaries,  etc.,  we  are 
under  the  ten-minute  rule? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  My  understanding  of  Dr. 
Blake's  motion  was  that  his  amendment  applied  simply  to  the 
question  of  the  geographical  boundaries.   Am  I  correct? 

Edgar  Blake :  That  is  the  only  matter  unfinished  that  we 
have.  We  have  already  adopted  the  geographical  bounda- 
ries :  'There  shall  be  the  following  Regional  Jurisdictions,  each 
having  its  own  Regional  Conference'' — and  then  follow  the 
areas  and  the  boundaries. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  My  point  was,  was  your 
amendment  limited  to  the  question  of  the  geographical  bounda- 
ries ? 

Edgar  Blake:  My  amendment  is  limited  to  Subsections  I,  2, 
3,  4,  5,  and  6  of  Section  1,  under  Article  VI. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Those  are  the  geographical 
boundaries. 

Bishop  Leete :  We  talk  about  things  we  have  adopted  and 
agreed  on.  Wc  have  not  adopted  anything  except  tentatively ; 
and  inasmuch  as  we  have  adopted  nothing  absolutely,  how  can 
we  get  at  the  fundamental  question  involved  in  it?  Are  we 
to  be  tied  up  in  the  discussion  of  certain  things  unfinished,  or 
can  we  take  the  things  adopted  tentatively?  I  feel  that  there  is 
a  great  question  involved.  If  we  are  going  to  have  liberty 
anywhere,  it  should  be  on  the  main  question,  and  I  would  like 
to  see  this  matter  handled  in  no  narrow  spirit.  Ten  minutes  on 
the  boundaries,  and  then  only  five  minutes  on  other  important 
matters  !  I  would  rather  have  liberty  on  the  general  topics.  That 
is  a  fair  way  to  get  at  it. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  question  is  on  the  amend- 
ment. 

David  G.  Downey:  Is  a  substitute  in  order? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  An  amendment  to  the  amend- 
ment is  in  order. 

David  G.  Downey :  I  move  as  an  amendment  to  the  amend- 
ment that  in  the  discussion  of  Article  VI.,  Regional  Confer- 
ences, the  five-minute  rule  shall  not  apply. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  That  amendment  is  already 
before  us. 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


25 


David  G.  Downey :  I  understood  you  to  rule,  and  Dr.  Blake 
to  say,  that  the  only  thing  before  us  was  as  to  the  geographical 
boundaries;  and  Article  VI.  takes  in  the  whole  matter  of  Re- 
gional Conferences,  including  boundaries,  members,  and  powers. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  I  beg  your  pardon.  You 
run  through  the  whole  of  Article  VI. 

David  G.  Downey:  Yes. 

Rolla  V.  Watt :  I  move  that  all  we  have  before  us  be  laid  on 
the  table  and  that  we  proceed  under  the  ten-minute  rule. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Are  you  ready  to  vote  on  the 
amendment  to  the  amendment?  The  amendment  is  that  there 
shall  be  an  exception  to  the  five-minute  rule  so  far  as  all  the 
sections  of  Article  VI.  of  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Con- 
ferences is  concerned. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  have  not  the  slightest  objection  to  Dr.  Dow- 
ney's motion,  if  the  one  who  seconded  mine  will  accept  it. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  I  do  not  recall  who  second- 
ed your  amendment. 

Bishop  Hoss :  I  rise  to  a  question  of  inquiry.  Do  I  under- 
stand that  Dr.  Blake's  amendment  involved  the  reopening  of 
the  whole  question  of  the  Regional  Conference? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  No,  sir;  his  amendment  is 
that  in  the  consideration  of  Subsection  1  of  Article  VI.  the  five- 
minute  rule  shall  not  apply.  The  amendment  of  Dr.  Downey  is 
that  the  five-minute  rule  shall  not  apply  to  the  consideration  of 
any  of  the  sections  of  Article  VI.  down  to  Article  VII.,  on 
page  3. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  amendment  offered  by  Dr.  Downey 
was  carried  by  a  vote  of  26  to  15. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  amendment  to  the 
amendment  prevailed ;  and  while  that  as  a  fact  parliamentary 
settles  the  whole  question,  to  comply  with  the  parliamentary  re- 
quirements I  will  take  a  vote  on  the  amendment  as  amended. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  amendment  as  amended  was  carried. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  do  not  understand  the  question. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny):  The  question  is —  Is  it 
desired  that  the  question  be  taken  over  again? 

Bishop  McDowell:  No. 

H.  M.  Du  Bose:  I  shall  not  presume  to  instruct  the  Chair, 
but  I  trust  that  the  Chairman  will  be  careful  in  observing  his 
watch. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny):  Why  emphasize  this?  Be- 
cause I  did  not  call  you  down  at  Savannah  on  that  long  speech 
that  you  made? 

J.  R.  Pepper :  I  desire  to  move  that  the  final  adjournment  of 
this  meeting  be  at  five  o'clock  Saturday  afternoon. 


26     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

F.  M.  Thomas:  I  would  like  to  explain  a  matter  which  I 
am  in  a  sense  responsible  for.  It  seems  that  at  Savannah, 
before  we  adjourned,  there  was  a  suggestion — I  find  there  was  no 
resolution,  but  it  seems  that  there  was  a  suggestion  that  we 
undertake  no  social  festivities  in  St.  Louis.  That  entirely 
slipped  my  mind.  I  had  to  be  in  St.  Louis  last  week.  I  tried 
not  to  come,  but  found  that  I  had  to  come  to  see  about  the 
hotel  and  church,  and  I  found  the  Local  Committee  making 
some  arrangements  with  reference  to  entertaining  us  while  here. 
If  I  had  remembered  that  suggestion  at  Savannah,  I  certainly 
would  have  told  the  Local  Committee  about  it,  but  as  Brother 
Brown  was  the  Local  Commissioner  I  supposed  it  was  his  duty 
to  call  to  my  mind  anything  that  had  slipped  my  mind,  there- 
fore I  wish  to  apologize  to  the  Commission  for  my  failure  in 
that,  matter. 

George  Warren  Brown :  Just  blame  Commissioner  Brown. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  If  you  will  allow  me  to 
interject  just  here — as  a  matter  of  courtesy,  I  shall  be  present 
at  the  banquet  to-night,  though  I  am  not  much  given  to  ban- 
quets when  we  are  on  work  of  this  kind.  Without  intending  to 
use  a  word  that  will  reflect  on  anybody  else,  I  do  not  approve  of 
them.  They  are  dissipating  in  their  mental  as  well  as  their 
physical  effects — at  least  they  are  to  me.  I  think  I  ought  to 
state  to  the  Commission,  as  a  matter  of  courtesy  as  well  as  a 
matter  affecting  the  procedure,  that  I  have  been  the  acting 
Chairman  of  our  Commission ;  but  now  Bishop  Hoss  is  here,  and 
it  will  give  me  great  pleasure  to  turn  that  responsibility  over  to 
him. 

Bishop  Hoss :  There  is  a  great  word  going  around  in  the 
Church,  the  word  "prerogative."  That  is  a  word  that  I  very 
seldom  use,  but  if  I  have  any  "prerogative"  in  this  case  I  turn 
it  over  to  you. 

Bishop  Denny:  If  Bishop  Hoss  were  just  inclined  to  turn 
over  to  me  burdens,  he  could  provoke  me ;  but  he  turns  over 
to  me  so  many  privileges  as  well  as  so  many  burdens  that 
I  cannot  get  angry  with  him,  but  only  in  definitely  close 
brotherly  relations  to  him.  Well,  I  have  to  bear  this  burden. 
I  can  be  present  at  the  banquet  only  a  very  short  time.  My 
purpose  in  going  at  all  is  simply  to  show  my  courteous  appre- 
ciation of  the  invitation.  Nothing  can  be  expected  of  me  at  the 
banquet,  and  I  shall  stay  certainly  not  longer  than  fifteen  min- 
utes. I  need  not  go  into  the  reasons  for  all  this.  I  am  off 
of  a  very  hard  trip,  in  which  I  was  pressed  to  the  utmost  of  my 
physical  vigor.    I  have  ahead  of  me  a  good  deal  of  what  will  be 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


27 


exceeding  hard  work,  and  I  am  taking  this  action  on  that  ac- 
count. 

Bishop  Hoss:  The  chances  are  that  the  General  Conference 
will  take  something  off  the  Bishops. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  But  until  they  do  we  have 
to  bear  it. 

John  M.  Moore:  I  am  not  sure  that  I  understand  the  method 
of  procedure,  or  what  is  exactly  before  us;  but  if  I  do,  we  are 
to  begin  with  Article  I. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  We  are  to  take  up  Article  VI. 

John  M.  Moore:  We  are  to  take  up  each  Article  and  make 
any  amendment  that  we  choose  to  make  and  then  pass  on  down : 
Is  that  the  idea? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  I  really  do  not  feel  author- 
ized to  answer  that  question  from  the  chair. 

John  M.  Moore:  I  think  it  would  be  well  for  us  to  change 
the  form  of  statement  in  the  first  five  articles,  and  I  have  writ- 
ten out  the  form  of  statement  I  would  suggest;  but,  of  course, 
I  am  not  a  committee  on  this  subject.  I  think  each  of  these 
articles  should  begin  with  an  enacting  clause.  Instead  of  say- 
ing "The  membership  of  the  Church  shall  be  divided  into  local 
societies,  one  or  more  of  which  shall  constitute  ai  pastoral 
charge,"  it  should  read:  "There  shall  be  pastoral  charges,"  etc. 
In  the  next  one,  instead  of  what  we  have,  I  would  say: 
"There  shall  be  a  Conference  composed  of  all  the  members  of 
the  local  societies  and  resident  members  of  an  Annual  Confer- 
ence, and  such  others  as  the  General  Conference  may  determine," 
etc.  You  will  see  that  I  have  not  only  changed  the  wording  but 
some  of  the  contents  of  that  article.  I  do  that  for  this  rea- 
son: There  is  a  very  great  desire  on  the  part  of  many  of  our 
people  to  simplify  this  statement  as  much  as  possible,  and  not 
to  put  into  the  Constitution  matters  that  should  be  determined 
from  time  to  time  by  the  General  Conference  by  its  own  statu- 
tory process.  We  say  in  the  latter  part  of  this  article:  "It 
(such  Conference)  shall  elect  such  a  number  of  delegates  to 
the  District  Conference  as  may  be  fixed  by  the  General  Con- 
ference; provided,  that  only  those  members  of  the  Church  who 
have  reached  the  age  of  eighteen  years  shall  be  entitled  to  vote 
in  the  Church  Conference."  I  would  think  it  better  to  leave 
that  to  the  General  Conference.  We  say  a  Quarterly  Confer- 
ence shall  be  organized  in  each  pastoral  charge,  shall  be  com- 
posed of  such  persons  and  have  such  powers  as  the  General 
Conference  may  determine.  I  think  that  should  read,  "There 
shall  be  a  Quarterly  Conference  organized  in  each  pastoral 
charge,"  etc. 


28     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


Article  IV.  District  Conferences. 

There  shall  be  held  annually  in  each  district  of  the  Annual  Conference 
a  District  Conference,  to  be  composed  of  the  traveling,  superannuated, 
supernumerary,  and  local  preachers  of  the  district,  of  delegates  from  the 
Church  Conference,  and  of  such  other  members  as  may  be  designated  by 
the  General  Conference. 

Provided,  that  any  Regional  Conference  shall  be  allowed,  upon 
the  majority  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  present  and  voting 
and  two-thirds  of  the  Annual  Conference  present  and  voting, 
to  transfer  the  duties  of  the  District  Conferences  to  other  reg- 
ularly constituted  bodies,  and  to  discontinue  the  holding  of  the 
District  Conferences.  I  would  put  that  in  the  Constitution.  I 
am  indicating  an  amendment.  I  understand  that  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  has  District  Conferences — has  pro- 
visions for  them — but  they  are  not  always  held.  The  District 
Conference  is  not  really  a  necessity  in  our  work,  but  in  our 
Church  in  the  South  we  have  used  it  everywhere  and  at  all 
times  and  it  has  become  a  very  important  matter.  It  seems  to 
me  the  Regional  Conferences  might  well  be  given  the  power  to 
determine  whether  or  not  they  want  to  hold  these  District  Con- 
ferences. It  seems  to  me  that  should  be  left  as  a  matter  of 
regulative  work  on  the  part  of  the  General  Conference  to  the  Re- 
gional Conference.  Then  in  the  Annual  Conference  section 
I  make  no  change  except  the  enacting  clause,  "There  shall  be," 
etc.  Then  in  Article  VI.,  instead  of  putting  it,  "There  shall 
be  the  following  Regional  Jurisdictions,  each  having  its  own  Re- 
gional Conference,"  I  would  put  in  first  the  enacting  clause, 
"There  shall  be  Regional  Jurisdictions,  each  having  its  own  Re- 
gional Conference.  The  Regional  Jurisdiction  shall  be  consti- 
tuted as  follows,"  etc. 

Edgar  Blake:  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Commission  has 
passed  on  Articles  I.,  II.,  III.,  IV.,  V.,  and  the  matter  sug- 
gested by  Dr.  Moore,  with  some  slight  exceptions,  what  seemed 
to  be  matters  of  editorial  revision,  I  move  that  we  take  up  Sec- 
tion i  of  Article  VI. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

John  F.  Goucher:  I  move  that  there  shall  be  eight  Regional 
Conferences. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  We  are  on  Article  I.  under 
this  motion. 

John  F.  Goucher:  We  are  under  Article  VI.,  Section  i,  under 
this  motion.  It  says,  "There  shall  be  the  following  Regional 
Jurisdictions,"  and  it  goes  on  to  name  them.  I  wanted  to  say, 
"There  shall  be  eight  Regional  Jurisdictions,  each  having  its 
own  Regional  Conference." 

The  motion  was  seconded. 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


29 


John  F.  Goucher:  Among  many  reasons  which  I  shall  not 
have  a  chance  to  refer  to  for  offering  this  motion  are  these: 
The  aim  and  object  of  the  Regional  Conferences,  as  I  under- 
stand it,  is  to  secure  local  representation.  I  do  not  believe 
in  a  union  that  is  absolutely  cast-iron  and  copper-riveted.  In 
my  judgment  the  best  possible  system  of  union  is  the  federa- 
tion which  is  represented  by  the  United  States  Government.  I 
deem  it  that  we  are  wise  in  having  the  General  Conference  as  a 
centralized  power  to  legislate  for  all  connectional  interests,  but 
to  give  the  largest  possible  autonomy  for  local  self-govern- 
ment in  these  Regional  Conferences.  Therefore,  in  the  Sub- 
Regional  or  Central  Conferences  the  territory  is  represented. 
That  is  the  virtue  which  has  come  to  us  in  demonstration  with 
the  action  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  I 
thought  it  was  very  good — that  it  might  do  intensive  work 
characterized  by  homogeneity  of  environment,  absolutely  im- 
possible except  by  some  process  of  that  kind;  and  this  is  taking 
that  demonstrated  principle  and  undertaking  to  divide  our 
Church  into  certain  Regional  Jurisdictions  to  be  characterized 
by  homogeneity  of  environment  in  which  the  Church  can  find 
its  best  intensive  application.  I  think  oight  Regional  Confer- 
ences will  give  larger  opportunity  for  better  classification  and 
much  more  efficient  interpretation  than  six.  I  am  not  ready  to 
give  the  delineation  of  those  eight,  but  the  purpose  is  to  make 
most  efficient  the  principles  which  have  been  demonstrated  in  the 
life  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  further 
demonstrated  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  that  in 
Eastern  Asia  and  Southern  Asia  and  in  Europe  similar  mat- 
ter has  been  developed  naturally.  It  is  evolution  from  the  very 
necessity  of  the  case,  that  they  may  have  a  homogeneity  of  en- 
vironment and  local  interpretation  of  the  general  principles  of 
the  whole  Church,  and  so  make  for  a  unity  which  will  be  rep- 
resentative and  comprehensive  and  intensive,  and  in  my  judg- 
ment if  we  have  eight  of  these  Regional  Conferences  we  shall 
have  a  better  opportunity  for  the  differentiation  of  work  that 
will  carry  with  it  an  approximate  homogeneity  and  be  very  much 
more  efficient. 

R.  E.  Blackwell :  How  would  you  divide  them  ? 

A.  F.  Watkins:  Dr.  Goucher  said  that  he  was  not  prepared 
to  divide  them. 

Bishop  Hoss:  We  are  headed  for  a  destination  we  never  in- 
tended to  reach  when  we  began  these  deliberations,  and  which 
I  hope  we  shall  not  reach  now.  What  do  we  want  with  eight 
Regional  Conferences?  It  has  been  one  of  the  chief  arguments 
in  favor  of  union  that  it  would  bring  together  all  the  con- 
flicting elements  in  every  part  of  the  country  and  allow  them  to 
operate  upon  one  another.    I  should  like  to  know  what  influ- 


30     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


ence  a  Tennesseean  is  to  have  in  New  England  under  this  ar- 
rangement, and  a  Tennesseean  ought  to  be  allowed  to  have  some 
influence  anywhere !  If  you  are  going  to  have  eight  Regional 
Conferences,  you  are  going  to  have  your  bishop  elected  by  a 
little  handful  of  men,  against  which  I  most  earnestly  protest. 
I  do  not  want  any  small  bishops  in  the  Methodist  Church.  We 
have  had  enough  of  them,  and  there  ought  to  be  a  day  of  better 
things.  According  to  this  schedule  here  the  district  composed 
of  Missouri,  Oklahoma,  Arkansas,  and  Texas  now  would  have 
only  one  hundred  delegates,  and  a  bishop  for  that  region  is  to 
be  elected  by  those  one  hundred  men.  I  have  been  a  bishop 
myself  in  Texas,  Arkansas,  Missouri,  and  Oklahoma,  and  I  do 
not  believe  that  they  would  be  satisfied  with  a  bishop  elected 
for  them  by  one  hundred  men.  I  want  a  bishop  to  represent 
something  larger  than  that.  I  should  like  to  know  how  you  are 
going  to  divide  up  and  get  the  eight  Regional  Conferences. 
Dr.  Goucher,  before  I  vote  for  any  measure  I  want  to  know  how- 
it  is  going  to  turn  out.  In  what  direction  are  you  going?  What 
are  to  be  those  Regional  Conferences?  Are  you  going  to  leave 
off  New  Jersey  and  New  York  from  New  England  or  Penn- 
sylvania? Are  you  going  to  cut  loose  Delaware  and  Maryland 
or  the  District  of  Columbia  from  the  Virginia  Conference?  It 
seems  to  me  that  you  will  have  a  very  small  Regional  Confer- 
ence if  that  is  done;  and  then,  more  than  that,  these  Regional 
Conferences  are  simply  tentative  anyhow.  That  is  a  word  that 
we  should  understand  the  significance  of  at  the  present  time.  I 
do  not  know  that  I  ever  heard  the  word  "tentative"  so  often  in 
my  life  as  I  have  heard  it  in  the  discussions  and  writings  of  this 
Commission.  If  we  are  going  to  have  Regional  Conferences  at 
all,  I  want  them  fixed  in  their  permanency  and  their  stability 
guaranteed.  I  am  opposed  to  making  six  or  eight  Regional 
Conferences,  and  then  giving  the  General  Conference  at  its  own 
pleasure  power  to  wipe  them  all  out.  I  am  very  much  in  favor 
of  the  Quadrennial  Conferences  as  they  were  proposed  in  the 
original  meetings  of  the  Commission,  but  they  were  very  dif- 
ferent things  from  the  Regional  Conferences  proposed  now.  I 
am  not  in  the  same  atmosphere  that  I  was  in  then  at  all.  I  do 
not  feel  as  if  I  were  headed  for  the  same  place,  but  I  do  not 
want  to  make  a  speech  ;  I  want  to  make  my  speech  later  on. 

Bishop  ■McDowell :  The  matter  of  the  geography  of  the  Re- 
gional Conferences  is  of  very  great  consequence.  There  are 
two  theories  with  reference  to  it,  and  one  is  that  there  should 
be  a  very  small  number  of  these  Regional  Conferences,  which 
would  make  the  Conferences  themselves  very  large.  I  think  in 
the  plan  adopted  at  Oklahoma  City  the  suggestion  was  made  that 
there  should  be  three  or  four  Regional  Conferences — was  it 
not? 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


3i 


Bishop  Hoss :  That  came  from  Chattanooga,  I  think. 

Bishop  McDowell :  We  desire  to  conserve  two  or  three  things. 
We  desire  to  conserve  what  has  been  called  local  homogeneity 
and  autonomy  of  interest,  similarity  of  interest.  We  desire  at 
the  same  time  to  conserve  certain  impressiveness  that  can  only 
be  obtained  by  size;  but  there  are  still  other  things  that  in  the 
original  adjustment  were  carefully  conserved.  We  are  not  simply 
seeking  rearrangement  of  the  Church,  but  a  unification  of  the 
Church;  and  the  Regional  Conference  must  be  so  adjusted  as 
to  avoid  sectionalizing  the  Church,  whether  that  sectionalizing 
shall  take  place  as  between  the  North  and  the  South  or  the  East 
and  the  South  or  the  West  and  the  South  or  between  the  North 
and  the  East  or  the  Eastern  South  and  the  W estern  South  or  the 
Eastern  North  and  the  Western  North.  I  think  Dr.  Goucher's 
suggestion  is  one  of  the  suggestions  that  we  must  consider.  It 
is  true  this  would  not  make  as  large  Regional  Conferences  as 
we  had  thought  of ;  but  small  Annual  Conferences  are  repre- 
sented in  the  General  Conference,  and  there  is  no  definite  law 
that  requires  that  these  Regional  Conferences  shall  at  the  present 
be  all  of  the  same  size.  In  some  sections  of  the  country  the 
area  is  large  and  the  population  relatively  small.  In  other  sec- 
tions the  area  is  smaller  and  the  population  is  large.  I  can 
propose  what  I  believe  would  be  a  good  adjustment  on  the  basis 
of  eight  Regional  Conferences  that  would  preserve  the  prin- 
ciple of  local  homogeneity,  comparative  similarity  of  interest, 
and  that  would  avoid  sectionalizing  the  Church  as  between  the 
North  and  the  South,  which  of  all  things  we  wish  to  avoid,  and 
that  would  at  the  same  time  make  Regional  Conferences  that 
would  be  large  enough  to  be  sufficiently  impressive  to  do  their 
work.  Now  the  matter  of  the  election  of  bishops,  which  is  one 
of  the  things  we  have  tentatively  passed,  is  involved  in  this; 
but,  brothers,  we  have  two  or  three  things  to  reconsider  and  go 
over  again,  in  the  business  of  the  episcopal  election  and  in  the 
business  of  the  episcopal  administration,  before  we  are  finally 
done.  If  Dr.  Goucher  will  allow,  let  me  state  a  proposition  or 
two  that  will  indicate  how  this  matter  would  fall  if  divided  into 
eight  Regional  Conferences.  I  will  not  go  through  all  of  it,  be- 
cause that  would  be  a  little  bit  too  complicated ;  but  may  I  sug- 
gest how  it  might  fall,  and  I  would  use  Conference  boundaries 
rather  than  State  boundaries  in  this  matter,  because  with  us — 
I  do  not  think  quite  so  much  with  you — we  have  a  number  of 
Conferences  that  overlap  State  boundaries,  due  to  the  peculiar 
shape  of  the  State.  A  lot  of  them  are  of  that  general  character. 
Let  me  make,  therefore,  a  proposition  for  a  Regional  Confer- 
ence that  would  embrace  the  following  Annual  Conferences,  all 
of  them  in  the  North :  Maine,  East  Maine,  New  Hampshire, 
Vermont,  New  England,  New  England  Southern,  New  York, 


32     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


New  York  East,  Newark,  East  German,  Eastern  Swedish,  Gen- 
esee, Central  New  York,  Northern  New  York,  and  Troy — 
which  makes  a  total  of  560,000  members.  That  region  would 
all  be  in  the  North.  Then  make  another  Regional  Conference, 
which  would  embrace  the  following  Conferences:  Philadelphia, 
New  Jersey,  Wyoming,  Baltimore,  Baltimore  (South),  Wilming- 
ton, Virginia,  Western  Virginia,  and  West  Virginia — making  a 
total  of  682,000  members,  and  would  be  nearly  equally  divided 
at  that  point  between  members  who  are  now  members  of  one 
Church  and  those  of  the  other.  I  stand  here  to  say  that  we  are 
exceedingly  anxious  to  present  a  geographical  plan  that  may  be 
so  clear  that  it  will  carry  in  the  Church.  I  do  not  believe  that 
we  can  carry  a  geographical  plan  to  put  the  capital  of  the  na- 
tion into  an  exclusively  Northern  Jurisdiction ;  you  could  not 
carry  it  in  the  South.  By  exactly  the  same  token  I  do  not  be- 
lieve we  could  carry  a  geographical  plan  to  put  the  capital  of 
the  nation  into  an  exclusively  Southern  Jurisdiction.  As  near 
as  I  can  figure  this  out,  we  should  put  the  capital  into  a  Regional 
Conference  almost  exactly  balanced  as  to  membership,  as  near 
as  can  be,  without  getting  some  converts  somewhere  to  pull  the 
matter  up  or,  as  some  might  think,  to  pull  the  matter  down. 
Then  I  suggest,  and  this  is  a  simple  suggestion,  another  Region- 
al Conference  that  shall  embrace  North  Carolina,  Western  North 
Carolina,  Blue  Ridge,  Atlanta,  South  Carolina,  Upper  South 
Carolina,  Georgia,  North  Georgia,  South  Georgia,  St.  Johns 
River,  Florida,  Holston,  South  Holston,  Tennessee,  Central  Ten- 
nessee, Kentucky,  South  Kentucky,  and  Louisville,  which  would 
make  a  total  of  900,000  in  round  numbers. 

H.  M.  Du  Bose:  Does  that  include  the  Memphis  Conference? 

Bishop  McDowell :  No.  There  is  another  suggestion  with 
reference  to  grouping  that  would  make  a  Regional  Conference 
of  this  sort — namely,  Pittsburg,  Cincinnati,  and  Louisville,  with 
the  Conferences  that  would  be  properly  adjacent  to  them  in  the 
region.    I  don't  want  to  tire  the  body — 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Your  time  is  up. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  want  to  lay  this  out  as  a  specimen  of 
how  this  matter  could  be  done.  I  myself,  if  I  may  have  a  single 
word,  do  not  care  to  have  bishops  elected  by  small  bodies.  I 
believe  bishops  might  be  nominated  by  the  Regional  Conferences 
and  elected  by  the  General  Conferences  or  by  the  whole  Church, 
and  that  is  the  way  to  accomplish  that. 

W.  N.  Ainsworth :  It  seems  to  me  we  shall  be  compelled  to 
vary  from  our  rules,  and  I  move  that  Bishop  McDowell  be 
given  enough  time  to  finish  his  outline  of  this  plan. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  have  two  outlines,  both  greatly  subject 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


33 


to  modification.  I  am  not  sure  that  I  have  them  in  full  detail  all 
the  way  through.    I  only  started — 

H.  M.  Du  Bose  :  Give  the  remainder  of  your  first,  then. 

Bishop  McDowell:  Regional  Conference  No.  4,  subject  to 
serious  modification,  as  I  said  a  moment  before :  Pittsburg,  Erie, 
Central  Pennsylvania,  Detroit,  Michigan,  North  Indiana,  Cen- 
tral German,  Northeast  Ohio,  Ohio,  West  Ohio,  and  Indiana. 

Edgar  Blake :  How  many  members  would  be  embraced  in 
that  jurisdiction? 

Bishop  McDowell:  There  would  be  1,034,000,  all  Northern. 
Regional  Conference  No.  5,  Northwest  Indiana,  Rock  River, 
Central  Illinois,  Illinois,  Chicago  German,  Central  Swedish,  Min- 
nesota, Northern  Minnesota,  Wisconsin,  West  Wisconsin, 
Northern  Swedish,  Northern  German,  Northern  Danish,  Iowa, 
Upper  Iowa,  Northwest  Iowa,  Des  Moines,  Northwest  German, 
Western  Swedish,  and  Nebraska,  making  a  total  of  689,000 
members. 

Bishop  Hoss :  Where  does  the  Illinois  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  go? 

Bishop  McDowell:  That  is  mostly  in  the  southern  part  of 
the  State,  and  will  come  in  a  moment.  Regional  Conference 
No.  6,  Southern  Illinois  (North),  Illinois  (South),  St.  Louis 
(both  Churches),  St.  Louis  German,  Missouri  (both  Churches), 
Western  Missouri,  Memphis,  Arkansas,  North  Arkansas,  Lit- 
tle Rock,  Alabama,  North  Alabama,  the  two  Alabamas,  North 
Mississippi,  Gulf,  Southern  German  Texas,  Mississippi,  and 
Louisiana,  making  a  total  of  856,000  members.  Then  we  come 
to  Regional  Conference  No.  7,  which  would  be  geographically 
large  but  numerically  not  so  large,  because  it  has  not  the  popu- 
lation and  the  membership.  It  would  embrace  North  Dakota, 
Dakota,  two  Montana  Conferences,  North  Montana,  Oregon, 
Puget  Sound,  Columbia,  East  Columbia,  Idaho,  Colorado,  Den- 
ver, North  Dakota,  Arizona,  Utah,  and  New  Mexico,  with  a  to- 
tal of  212,000.  Regional  Conference  No.  8  would  embrace 
Kansas  City — I  have  not  got  these  Conferences  run  out. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Southwest  Missouri,  in  our 
Church. 

Bishop  McDowell :  That  would  embrace  the  Kansas,  Oklaho- 
ma, and  Texas  group.  There  is  a  little  different  adjustment 
possible  in  the  middle  that  would  throw  Pittsburg  and  the  Con- 
ferences surrounding  it,  Cincinnati  and  the  Conferences  sur- 
rounding it  (excluding  Indiana),  and  Louisville  and  the  Con- 
ferences surrounding  it — you  see  I  have  at  least  the  residential 
idea — with  the  Conferences  around,  making  a  total  in  that 
group  of  898,000,  reducing  the  Chicago  group  somewhat,  which 
would  make  932,000,  taking  100,000  off  up  there.  That,  I  think, 
3 


34     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

fairly  states  in  the  large  the  general  outline.  I  thank  you  for 
the  extension  of  time. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  I  confess  that  the  motion  made  by  Dr. 
Goucher  and  the  paper  presented  by  Bishop  McDowell  have 
surprised  me  and  disappointed  me.  I  am  not  at  all  in  sympathy 
with  the  motion  made  nor  with  the  plan  outlined.  It  will  be 
remembered  that,  lying  back  behind  the  paper  adopted  at  Okla- 
homa City  and  the  paper  adopted  at  Saratoga  Springs,  there 
was  a  kind  of  agreement  entered  into  at  Chattanooga.  And  both 
Commissions  came  together  having  that  paper  before  them  and 
instructed  to  develop  and  perfect  a  plan  in  harmony  with  that 
paper.  It  is  perfectly  clear,  to  any  one  who  has  seen  the  prog- 
ress of  these  discussions  and  the  development  of  the  plan  of 
unification  up  to  the  present  point  that  a  majority  of  the 
Southern  Commissioners  have  receded  considerably  from  the 
plan  of  the  Regional  Conferences  that  was  in  the  minds  of  the 
brethren  at  Chattanooga  and  in  the  mind  of  the  General  Con- 
ference at  Oklahoma  City.  We  are  called  upon  this  morning 
to  recede  yet  further  from  that  plan,  and  practically  to  abandon 
it,  if  I  understand  the  meaning  of  this  motion  and  the  impli- 
cation of  the  remarks  that  have  been  made.  We  have  often 
spoken  of  the  status  of  the  colored  man  in  the  reorganized 
Church  as  being  the  crux  of  the  matter.  My  impression,  since 
our  meeting  at  Savannah,  has  been  that  the  Regional  Con- 
ference, as  a  matter  of  fact,  is  the  crux  of  the  matter;  and  it 
seems  to  me  to-day  that  I  am  correct  in  that  impression.  There 
are  many  people  in  the  M.  E.  Church,  South,  who  prefer  a 
smaller  number  of  Regional  Conferences  and  not  a  larger  num- 
ber. Some  of  us  have  been  led  to  agree  to  the  plan  of  six  Re- 
gional Conferences  that  had  been  proposed;  but  if  eight  Re- 
gional Conferences,  why  not  twelve?  Why  not  sixteen?  I  be- 
lieve there  are  about  sixteen  episcopal  areas  in  the  M.  E. 
Church  in  the  United  States.  Are  we  now  again  invited  prac- 
tically to  abandon  the  plan  of  Regional  Conferences  and  to  con- 
sent to  episcopal  areas  instead?  Then,  if  my  ears  did  not  de- 
ceive me,  I  heard  reference  made  by  the  first  speaker  to  the 
plan  of  Central  Conferences  that  had  been  worked  out  in  the 
foreign  fields  by  our  brethren  of  the  M.  E.  Church.  We  are 
entirely  unwilling  that  the  Regional  Conferences,  worked  out 
by  the  Commission  at  Chattanooga  and  indorsed  by  the  Gen- 
eral Conferences  of  the  two  Churches,  should  be  done  away 
with  and  that  we  should  now  substitute  something  like  your 
Central  Conference  for  that  Regional  Conference.  The  ob- 
jection is  somewhat  general  in  the  M.  E.  Church,  South,  that 
the  Regional  Conference  as  developed  has  been  largely  shorn 
of  its  autonomy.  I  fear  that  the  Regional  Conferences  pro- 
posed here  to-day  will  find  themselves  shorn  entirely  of  their 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


35 


autonomy;  for  I  understood  Bishop  McDowell  to  suggest  that, 
after  all,  the  Regional  Conference  ought  not  to  elect  the  bishops, 
but  only  nominate  the  bishops  to  be  elected  by  the  General 
Conference.  We  should  be  entirely  frank  with  one  another  at 
this  point.  We  shall  not  agree  to  that  now,  and  we  shall  never 
agree  to  it.  And  if  your  small  Regional  Conferences  now  pro- 
posed are  to  elect  bishops,  why,  we  shall  have  practically  a 
diocesan  episcopacy,  and  nothing  would  more  surely  tend  to 
break  up  the  Church  into  fragments  than  a  diocesan  episcopacy. 
I  believe  that  the  arrangement  for  six  Regional  Conferences, 
which  we  have  now  before  us  in  the  report  of  the  committee,  is  a 
logical  arrangement,  bringing  together  certain  sections  of  the 
country  that  are  homogeneous  and  have  interests  in  common, 
but  this  plan  now  presented  breaks  States  in  two  and  puts  to- 
gether sections  that  have  no  homogeneity  at  all.  My  dear 
brethren,  certainly  I  should  be  one  of  the  very  last  men  to  take 
a  stand  that  would  look  in  the  direction  of  sectionalism  any* 
where,  and  this  is  no  time  for  any  one  to  think  of  developing 
or  perpetuating  sectionalism;  but  it  is  altogether  possible  for 
one  to  go  entirely  too  far  in  trying  to  avoid  sectionalism,  and  he 
may  run  into  the  very  thing  he  speaks  of  avoiding  by  talking 
about  it  too  much,  trying  to  invent  too  many  ways  to  escape  it, 
thus  showing  that  he  himself  is  under  the  limitations  of  his  own 
sectionalism.  It  may  be  that  I  have  totally  misunderstood  the 
plan  that  is  proposed.  I  hope  I  have,  but  I  confess  I  feel  very 
much  disappointed  over  the  presenting  of  a  plan  of  this  sort 
at  this  time. 

I.  Garland  Penn:  I  have  a  proposition  to  make  just  at  this 
point.  I  was  not  quite  sure  at  first,  but  listening  to  the  speakers 
makes  me  sure  that  this  is  an  opportune  time  for  the  presenta- 
tion of  the  proposition.  I  may  say  in  advance  that  I  think  we 
have  drifted  too  far  from  the  basis  of  the  agreement  at  Chat- 
tanooga. Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  a  proposition  here  to  intro- 
duce concerning  the  number  of  Regional  Conferences  and  their 
boundaries,  but  was  not  so  sure  of  my  ground.  Since  hearing 
the  address  of  Bishop  Mouzon,  I  am  certain  that  the  introduc- 
tion of  this  proposition  is  now  opportune.  We  have  gone  far 
away  from  the  expressed  and  implied  agreement  at  Chattanooga, 
which  represents  the  basic  principles  upon  which  the  two  Church- 
es have  been  negotiating.  It  was  understood  that  there  would 
be  but  four  Regional  Jurisdictions,  and  I  therefore  submit  the 
following  as  a  substitute:  That  the  composition  and  boundaries 
of  Regional  or  Jurisdictional  Conferences  be  recommitted  to 
the  Committee  on  Conferences  with  instructions  to  consider, 
with  other  propositions  already  made,  the  following : 

There  shall  be  four  Regional  Conferences,  three  of  which  shall  have 
their  boundary  lines  running  from  North  to  South  of  the  territory  covered 


36     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

by  the  United  States  and  the  fourth  shall  be  made  up  of  the  colored  mem- 
bership of  the  Churches  now  negotiating  a  unification  of  their  members, 
and  such  other  colored  Methodists  as  may  elect  and  are  accepted  to  become 
a  part  of  the  same. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Brethren,  this  would  give  us  an  Eastern  Re- 
gional Conference,  composed  of  the  following  States :  Maine, 
New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  Con- 
necticut, New  York,  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  Delaware,  Mary- 
land, District  of  Columbia,  Virginia,  West  Virginia,  North  Car- 
olina, South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama,  and  Florida.  A  line 
drawn  on  the  east  from  Buffalo  to  Tallahassee  and  on  the  west 
from  the  western  boundary  line  of  Minnesota  to  Galveston  would 
give  us  the  Central  Jurisdiction,  composed  of  Michigan,  Ohio, 
Indiana,  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  Mississippi,  Wisconsin,  Minne- 
sota, Iowa,  Missouri,  Arkansas,  and  Louisiana.  All  west  of 
the  western  boundary  of  the  Central  Jurisdiction  to  the  Pacific 
Coast  would  compose  the  Western  Jurisdiction — viz.,  North 
Dakota,  South  Dakota,  Nebraska,  Kansas,  Oklahoma,  Texas, 
Montana,  Idaho,  Wyoming,  Colorado,  New  Mexico,  Utah,  Arizo- 
na, Washington,  Oregon,  California,  Hawaii,  and  Alaska.  The 
Colored  Conferences  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  such 
other  Negro  Methodisms  as  elect  to  become  and  are  accepted  as  a 
part  of  the  reunited  Methodist  Church,  would  constitute  the 
fourth  jurisdiction.  I  submit  this  as  in  accord  with  the  agreement 
understood  to  be  one  of  the  basic  principles  of  the  Chattanooga 
report  of  the  Joint  Commission  of  the  two  Churches,  especially 
as  concerns  the  place  of  the  negro  in  the  reorganized  Church. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Do  you  offer  that  as  an 
amendment  ? 

L  Garland  Penn :  Yes,  as  an  amendment. 

The  Chairman  (Bfishop  Denny)  ;  Is  that  amendment  sec- 
onded? 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  I  second  it. 

Claudius  B.  Spencer:  In  settling  this  question  we  must  be 
animated,  first  of  all,  by  extreme  common  sense  and  fair  play. 
When  we  come  to  apply  them  we  are  confronted  with  three 
types  of  Methodism  in  this  country,  and  we  may  as  well  take 
them  into  account  as  we  make  our  exploration  into  the  regional 
and  geographical  distribution  of  the  country.  There  is  the 
South.  Let  us  say  so ;  and  it  seems  to  me  that  it  would  be  the 
part  of  wisdom  and  fair  play  and  good  sense  for  us  to  say  that 
the  members  of  this  Commission  who  come  from  the  South 
understand  the  situation  there  better  than  I  can  in  my  place 
and  certainly  better  than  others  who  come  from  places  much 
more  remote  from  the  South.  Let  us  say  that  the  territory  in  the 
South  ought  to  be  put  in  their  hands ;  and  the  territory  in  the 
North  ought  to  be  placed  in  our  hands  who  are  daily  up  against 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


37 


its  problems.  In  the  second  place,  the  objection  to  the  propo- 
sition of  Bishop  McDowell  is  that  it  robs  the  unified  Methodist 
Church  of  its  power  in  social  reconstruction  and  the  making 
of  a  better  world.  Dr.  Warren,  whose  name  we  all  venerate, 
used  to  observe  to  me  on  more  than  one  occasion  that  one  reason 
why  Methodism  was  not  more  effective  than  it  was,  was  that 
the  New  England  Conference  has  no  reference  to  State  boun- 
daries, so  that  New  England  Methodism  does  not  speak  for 
Massachusetts,  we  will  say,  or  other  localities.  For  that  reason 
it  seems  to  me  in  making  this  division  we  should  bear  in  mind 
State  lines  as  much  as  possible,  in  order  that  the  Conferences 
in  that  State  can  proceed  with  solidarity  and  social  impact. 
In  the  next  place,  coming  around  to  the  remarks  of  Bishop  Mou- 
zon,  after  consideration  and  reflection,  it  presents  itself  to  my 
mind  in  this  way ;  it  seems  to  me  that  we  should  have  a  Northern 
series  of  Jurisdictions  and  a  Southern  series  of  Jurisdictions, 
for,  as  I  have  said,  we  have  three  Methodist  types ;  we  have 
in  one  the  Northern  and  in  another  the  Southern.  And  now  I 
come  to  what  I  consider  a  crucial  point;  we  have  also  a  border 
type.  Now,  why  should  we  take  account  of  the  extreme  North 
and  the  extreme  South  and  not  take  into  account  the  Con- 
ferences of  the  border,  where  the  question  is  acute  and  where 
the  influence  and  power  of  regions  far  from  them  would  be 


This  map  gives  the  division  into  the  six  jurisdictions  proposed  in  the 
Savannah  tentative  understanding.  It  is  obvious  that  it  pays  no  attention 
to  the  existence  of  border  Conferences  with  their  problems  most  serious 
and  peculiar  to  themselves. 


38     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


not  only  irritating  but  would  be  a  catastrophe?  I  live  in  the 
border,  and  I  have  tried  to  work  out  this  proposition  so  as  to 
satisfy  the  people  of  both  Churches  in  a  little  sketch  I  have 
made  here  and  which  I  would  like  to  pass  around  among  you. 
You  remember  that  wonderful  man  whose  influence  abides  and 
lingers  upon  this  Joint  Commission  still,  Bishop  Wilson.  He 
said:  'There  are  Methodists  who,  if  the  division  should  be  im- 
proper, would  consider  that  they  were  delivered  into  the  hands 
of  the  enemy."  We  might  as  well  face  that  fact.  There  are 
such,  and  they  are  good  people;  and  they  are  numerous  in  the 
border.  For  that  reason  I  have  thought  that  if  we  could 
have  this  uniform  principle,  three  Northern  Jurisdictions, 
three  Southern  Jurisdictions,  and  three  Border  Jurisdic- 
tions, we  could  settle  this  matter  without  difficulty.  I  see 
the  smiles  going  around,  but  if  you  will  look  at  the  little  map 
I  have  given  you,  you  will  find  that  the  ultimate  complexion  of 


The  analysis  of  areas  distributed  by  Dr.  Spencer  is  as  follows  :  Areas 
I.,  II.,  III.  being  the  Southern  areas,  1,  2,  3  being  the  Northern  areas, 

and  A,  B,  C  being  the  Border  areas. 


it  is  not  changed.  I  have  in  this  little  map  which  I  have  drawn 
put  the  State  of  Kansas  into  the  power  of  the  Southern  Church, 
if  it  wishes  to  exercise  it.  When  you  come  to  reflect  upon  the 
principles  that  are  brought  forward  here,  I  do  not  believe 
it  would  excite  unfavorable  comment.  For  the  question  is  not, 
after  all,  when  you  come  to  count  them,  whether  the  Church 
of  the  South  has  a  few  more  or  many  more  in  this  new  geo- 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


39 


graphical  division  for  the  border  Conferences  than  the  North. 
It  is  a  fundamental  question  of  these  Churches  and  these  Con- 
ferences, which  have  homogeneous  mixed  problems  different 
from  the  other,  to  sit  together  around  the  same  table  and  solve 
them  without  the  intrusion  of  those  who  are  on  the  outside. 
For  example,  if  I  may  read  them  to  you,  I  have  put 
here  into  one  of  these  border  jurisdictions  the  Baltimore,  Dela- 
ware, West  Virginia,  Kentucky,  and  Holston  Conferences, 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  Baltimore,  Western  Vir- 
ginia, Kentucky,  Louisville,  Holston,  Tennessee,  and  Memphis, 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  all  of  which  are 
homogeneous.  Those  men  face  the  same  problem.  They  re- 
spect each  other.  They  are  not  at  enmity  with  each  other;  but 
there  are  plenty  of  them  on  both  sides  who  would  resent  people 
coming  in  from  a  long  distance.  In  the  next  place,  if  this  prop- 
osition meets  favor,  you  put  the  capital  of  the  nation  in  a 
border  Conference,  and  the  bishops  from  the  North  and  those 
of  the  Church,  South,  would  have  equal  authority  and  prestige. 
There  would  be  bishops  elected  both  from  the  North,  and  the 
Church,  South.  In  the  second  one  of  these  border  areas  I  put 
Missouri,  St.  Louis,  Kansas,  Southwest  Kansas,  Northwest 
Kansas,  Oklahoma,  and"  Arkansas,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  and  Missouri,  St.  Louis,  Southwest  Missouri,  East 
Oklahoma,  West  Oklahoma,  Little  Rock,  and  North  Arkansas, 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  There  you  have 
a  group  of  homogeneous  interests,  if  there  ever  was  such  in 
this  land.  Brothers,  I  have  tested  them.  I  have  polled  them 
to  find  what  the  sentiment  in  the  area  was,  and  I  have  found 
it  congenial;  but  among  those  who  have  accepted  the  idea  of 
Regional  Conferences  there  are  those  who  strongly  resent  being 
thrown  over  bodily  into  a  condition  where  they  would  be  sub- 
merged, engulfed,  and  drowned  out  by  ia  vast  majority  of 
others  who  come  from  a  district  which  does  not  understand 
their  problems.  Before  my  time  expires  I  want  to  refer  to  the 
third  area,  which  will  interest  those  coming  from  the  far  West. 
You  will  understand  that  when  you  come  to  the  continental 
divide  and  go  on  the  Pacific  Slope  you  find  a  condition  differ- 
ent from  ours.  What  I  am  trying  to  say  is  this :  that  when  you 
get  to  the  Western  Slope,  beyond  the  continental  divide,  you 
find  a  group  of  States  which  will  turn  their  faces  toward  the 
Pacific  Ocean.  I  have  put  together  here  a  series  of  Confer- 
ences, every  one  of  which  has  members  in  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  and  also  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  True,  Dakota  is  in  that  area,  and  Dakota  does  lean 
toward  Minnesota  and  the  East;  but  when  you  get  beyond 
Dakota  you  will  find  territory  beginning  to  look  toward  Port- 
land and  Seattle.    This  third  one  has  not  quite  so  many  thou- 


40     Proceedings  of  the  Joiyit  Commission  on  Unification 

sands,  but  if  you  look  at  them  you  will  see  that  they  are  homo- 
geneous Conferences.  Beginning  with  Montana,  you  go  on  to 
Idaho,  Columbia  River,  Oregon,  California,  South  California, 
Nevada,  and  Utah,  in  the  Northern  Church,  and  Montana, 
East  Columbia,  Columbia,  Pacific,  and  Los  Angeles,  in  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South.  In  every  one  of  those  the  two 
Churches  are  working  side  by  side,  and  in  no  place  can  you 
find  men  who  are  more  anxious  to  get  together  than  there. 
The  thing  is  true  from  the  area  in  which  I  come;  and  through- 
out Kansas  and  Oklahoma  they  want  to  get  together.  Down 
there,  there  has  been  a  proposition  to  the  effect  that  if  we  fail 
to  provide  means  they  will  take  the  matter  into  their  own 
hands.  Now  all  through  these  areas,  A,  B,  and  C,  those  men 
are  unwilling  to  have  themselves  thrown  into  a  vast  area  with 
a  great  many  people  not  interested  in  their  problems,  and  the 
proposition  I  submit  does  not  let  them  be  swallowed  up  entirely. 

Bishop  Cooke:  I  would  like  to  deliver  my  soul  on  this  mat- 
ter of  Regional  Conferences,  having  never  spoken  on  it  before. 
I  may  not  be  able  to  remain  during  the  entire  session  and  I 
want  to  say  just  a  few  words  from  my  heart  about  this  whole 
matter  of  the  Regional  Conferences.  With  regard  to  what  has 
just  been  said,  I  think  nothing  could  be  more  disastrous  to  both 
Church  and  State,  now  and  in  the  future  development  of  our 
country  and  Church,  than  bunching  together  the  Northern  Con- 
ferences and  bunching  together  the  Southern  Conferences,  thus 
keeping  up  the  old  lines  of  sectional  division.  Nothing  has 
been  so  hurtful  to  our  national  unity  as  these  lines  of  divi- 
sion in  the  Church  and  State.  I  am  opposed  from  conviction 
to  taking  sectionalism  out  of  politics  and  perpetuating  it  for- 
ever in  the  Church.  I  do  not  believe  we  were  sent  here  to  do 
that  thing.  We  were  sent  here  to  unify  the  Church,  not  to  dis- 
rupt it.  We  were  sent  here  to  bind  the  people  of  the  several 
sections  into  one  body  in  Christ  Jesus.  Some  are  thinking  all 
the  time  of  representation,  of  equalizing  representation  in  the 
Regional  Conferences.  I  am  not  thinking  upon  that  line  at 
all.  What  I  am  thinking  about  in  Church  union  is  the  union 
of  the  people.  Settle  that  first,  and  settle  the  other  matters 
later  on.  I  am  thinking  of  the  unifying  of  the  nation.  Unity 
of  the  people — unity  of  the  nation — will  never  come  to  pass, 
no  matter  how  you  may  deceive  yourselves  with  words,  when 
you  have  actual  division  underneath  the  words,  the  division 
between  the  North  and  South.  The  thing  that  is  needed  now 
in  this  critical  period  of  time  is  unity  in  our  country.  If  you 
travel  through  the  East  or  the  Northwest,  you  feel  differently 
from  what  you  do  down  South,  and  I  have  a  profound  con- 
viction to-day  that  the  South  is  yet  to  be  the  savior  of  the  coun- 
try.   But  you  can  never  save  the  country  if  you  allow  yourself 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


4i 


to  be  shut  off  from  the  North  by  lines  running  through  the 
Church  east  and  west.  What  we  need  is  Southern  brethren 
going  upon  the  Northern  platform  and  Northern  men  going 
upon  the  Southern  platform — bringing  about  a  fusion  of  the 
people  of  the  country,  a  lining  up  of  all  in  unity;  but  this  sec- 
tionalism and  these  plans  in  your  Regional  boundaries  you  are 
making  here  are  overthrowing  that  very  thing,  because  no  one 
region  will  ever  wait  for  the  other.  Each  region  will  have  dif- 
ferent laws  and  rules  and  regulations,  and  when  you  will  pass 
out  of  one  region  into  another  you  will  be  practically  going  into 
an  entirely  different  Church.  We  have  different  conceptions  of 
union.  There  was  no  conception  presented  this  morning  anal- 
ogous to  the  government  of  the  United  States.  There  is 
nothing  that  men  of  affairs  and  students  of  history  need  to  be 
more  careful  of  and  ever  watchful  of,  than  specious  argument 
based  upon  false  analogies.  There  is  no  analogy  between  the 
government  of  the  United  States  and  the  Church  union  pro- 
posed by  our  General  Conferences.  There  would  be  analogy,  if 
you  call  them  divisions  of  the  Churches  as  you  talk  about  di- 
visions of  the  States  headed  up  in  the  Federal  government  at 
Washington.  There  is  union  in  the  head,  but  what  kind  of 
union  is  there  between  the  different  States?  As  Bishop  Hoss 
said  and  very  properly  and  very  logically  said,  what  kind  of  a 
union  is  there  between  Maine  and  Florida?  We  have  said 
that  these  Regional  Conferences  are  for  the  cultivation  of  local 
interest.  That  seems  to  be  a  lexicographical  substitute  for  an 
invented  necessity.  There  is  no  sincerity  or  reality  in  that. 
Maine  has  no  interest  in  Florida.  Florida  has  its  own  legis- 
lature, its  own  Governor,  its  own  State  powers,  and  Maine 
has  hers.  Where  is  the  unity?  What  is  the  use  of  trying  to 
deceive  ourselves  with  mere  words  ?  We  were  sent  here  to 
unify  the  Church,  not  to  divide  it;  but  with  these  Regional 
Conferences  with  such  regional  powers  we  are  dividing  the 
Church  again.  We  may  deny  it,  and  keep  on  denying  it;  but 
you  do  not  do  away  with  the  thing.  Where  is  your  episco- 
pacy? Were  we  sent  here  to  destroy  the  itinerant  general  su- 
perintendency  ? 

E.  C.  Reeves:   That  is  what  we  are  doing. 

Bishop  Cooke:  Of  course,  and  we  know  it,  no  matter  what 
we  say  to  the  contrary.  You  know  very  well  you  have  not 
got  itinerant  general  superintendency  in  regional  superintend- 
ency  as  localized  in  your  regions.  We  all  know  that.  And  we 
were  not  sent  here  to  do  that.  I  want  to  say  to  you  to-day,  and 
I  am  not  saying  it  out  of  my  mere  desire,  the  M.  E.  Church 
and  the  M.  E.  Church,  South,  will  never  accept  that  kind  of  a 
plan,  because  it  is  not  what  we  were  sent  here  to  do,  and  it 
is  not  a  plan  that  will  work  for  the  glory  of  God  and  the  per- 


42     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

petuation  of  unity  of  these  two  Churches.  We  are  committed 
to  a  plan,  but  not  necessarily  to  this  kind  of  a  plan.  We  are 
committed  to  a  regional,  but  not  necessarily  this  kind  of  a 
regional  affair. 

R.  E.  Blackwell:  What  do  you  propose,  Bishop? 

Bishop  Cooke :  One  thing  at  a  time.  Now  we  are  face  to  face 
with  these  conditions,  and  what  shall  we  do?  I  do  not  know 
of  any  better  way  to  make  a  beginning  than  to  give  careful  con- 
sideration to  the  plan  which  Bishop  McDowell  has  proposed. 
It  may  not  be  ideal.  He  does  not  present  it  as  ideal  or  as  fully 
wrought  out,  but  as  a  bridge  by  which  the  Conferences  of  the 
North  can  be  tied  to  the  Conferences  of  the  South  and  by  which 
the  Conferences  of  the  South  can  be  tied  to  the  Conferences  of  the 
North.  My  prayer  to  God  is  that  this  Church  may  be  united  and 
that  our  people  of  the  North  and  South  may  be  in  reality  one.  I 
care  not  about  representation  in  the  General  Conference — those 
things  will  take  care  of  themselves.  I  want  Southern  thought  and 
Southern  feeling  and  Southern  tradition  and  Southern  everything 
brought  into  the  North.  I  would  not  corral  the  brains  of  the  na- 
tion in  the  several  sections.  Why,  in  many  of  the  cities  of  the 
North  you  go  into  the  streets  and  you  hear  as  much  of  foreign 
languages  spoken  as  you  do  of  our  own.  There  is  where  the 
conflict  is  coming,  and  what  we  want  is  a  union  of  our  people 
in  everything  which  will  make  for  a  true  and  genuine  unity. 

John  M.  Moore:  We  are  charged  with  a  very  important  re- 
sponsibility. We  ought  to  look  at  the  problems  before  us  in  a 
very  practical  way.  I  do  not  think  anybody  could  imagine  that 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  would  concur  in  any 
such  divison  of  territory  as  that  proposed  by  Dr.  Penn.  There 
is  no  use  talking  about  drawing  lines  from  the  Canadian  bor- 
der to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  and  expecting  to  make  three  divi- 
sions of  the  United  States  and  expecting  our  people  to  agree 
to  that.  They  are  not  going  to  do  it  and  there  is  no  use  in 
discussing  it.  Now  take  up  the  question  that  Bishop  McDowell 
presents  to  us,  eight  divisions  having  memberships  ranging 
from  900,000  to  212,000.  That  is  not  practical.  We  are  under 
orders  from  our  General  Conference.  Certain  principles  have 
been  adopted,  and  one  of  these  principles  is  that  Regional  Con- 
ferences shall  be  formed.  We  did  not  make  those  provisions. 
They  were  made  for  us.  If  we  make  eight  of  these  divisions,  or 
nine,  as  Dr.  Spencer  suggests,  you  can  readily  see  that  some 
of  these  Regional  Conferences  would  be  so  pitifully  small  that 
the  representation  would  not  be  capable  of  choosing  bishops  or 
even  nominating  them.  That  would  be  wholly  impracticable. 
Much  is  said  of  sectionalism.  I  was  born  in  Kentucky.  I  live 
in  Tennessee.  I  have  had  residences  in  Missouri,  Texas,  Ohio, 
and  Connecticut.    These  Northern  residences  were  during  my 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


43 


school  days.  You  are  not  going  to  destroy  sectionalism  by 
putting  Florida  in  with  Maine.  You  create  friction.  Why  not 
let  the  divisions  come  together  in  their  own  way  and  work  out 
the  problems  of  the  Church?  If  you  are  going  to  put  them 
where  they  are  evenly  divided,  there  is  forever  the  contention 
whether  the  North  shall  win  or  the  South  shall  win.  Southern 
opinions  prevail  in  our  Church,  and  that  is  why  we  do  not  join 
your  Church.  If  the  doors  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
are  open  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  we  would 
not  go  in.  We  have  a  very  good  form  of  government.  It  might 
be  that  you  would  come  into  our  Church,  but  we  do  not  want  you. 
You  are  altogether  too  big.  There  is  a  certain  sort  of  exist- 
ing prejudice  with  regard  to  the  relationship  of  the  two  sec- 
tions that  prevents  either  from  joining  the  other,  and  all  we  have 
to  do  is  to  make  arrangements  by  which  each  section  should 
work  out  its  own  destiny  for  its  Church  in  its  own  way;  and  I 
think  that  with  the  six  Regional  Jurisdictions  we  can  do  these 
things,  and  I  am  opposed  to  eight  or  nine  or  three,  because  I 
do  not  think  they  will  allow  the  sections  to  work  out  the  prob- 
lems as  well  as  the  provision  we  have  made,  and  we  need  not 
be  afraid  of  developing  unusual  sectionalism.  I  am  opposed 
to  sectionalism,  but  in  a  certain  way  I  am  in  favor  of  section- 
alism. I  do  not  think  I  am  hurt  by  being  a  Southern  man  or 
you  by  being  a  Northern  man.  I  believe  that  by  being  a  South- 
ern man  I  can  still  be  an  American,  and  I  am  interested  in  fill- 
ing the  Nationalized  Church  with  units  that  have  respect  for 
other  divisions  and  that  will  work  out  their  lives  in  their  own 
sections,  and  you  need  not  be  afraid  of  us  and  we  need  not  be 
afraid  of  you.  I  think  we  can  take  care  of  our  Church,  and 
we  have  no  reason  to  be  afraid  of  you.  I  believe  the  system  we 
have  tentatively  laid  out  will  be  sufficient  for  the  work  we 
can  do. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  There  yet  remains  only  one 
minute  before  adjourning.    Are  there  any  notices? 

The  hymn,  "O  for  a  thousand  tongues  to  sing  my  great 
Redeemer's  praise,"  was  sung,  and  the  Commission  was  dis- 
missed with  the  benediction  by  Bishop  Hoss. 

Afternoon  Session,  April  io,  1918. 

The  Joint  Commission  met  pursuant  to  adjournment,  and 
was  called  to  order  by  Bishop  Denny. 

The  devotional  exercises  were  conducted  by  Rev.  W.  N. 
Ainsworth.  Prayer  was  offered  by  Dr.  Ainsworth.  The  hymn, 
"Guide  me,  O  thou  great  Jehovah,"  was  sung. 

Dr.  Stuart  led  in  prayer. 

The  hymn,  "I  love  to  tell  the  story,"  was  sung. 

The  roll  was  called  and  the  following  Commissioners  were 


44     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


present:  Bishops  John  W.  Hamilton,  W.  F.  McDowell,  F.  D. 
Leete,  R.  J.  Cooke,  from  the  M.  E.  Church ;  Bishops  Collins 
Denny,  E.  E.  Hoss,  Edwin  D.  Mouzon,  W.  B.  Murrah,  from 
the  M.  E.  Church,  South.  Ministers:  Edgar  Blake,  D.  G. 
Downey,  J.  F.  Goucher,  R.  E.  Jones,  A.  J.  Nast,  Frank  Neff, 
Edwin  M.  Randall,  C.  B.  Spencer,  J.  W.  Van  Cleve,  John  J. 
Wallace,  from  the  M.  E.  Church ;  F.  M.  Thomas,  W.  J.  Young, 
John  M.  Moore,  C.  M.  Bishop,  E.  B.  Chappell,  T.  N.  Ivey,  A. 
F.  Watkins,  H.  M.  Du  Bose,  W.  N.  Ainsworth,  A.  J.  Lamar, 
from  the  M.  E.  Church,  South.  Laymen :  George  Warren 
Brown,  Abram  W.  Harris,  Charles  W.  Kinne,  I.  G.  Penn,  Alex 
Simpson,  Jr.,  (Dr.  C.  M.  Stuart,  Dr.  James  R.  Joy),  Charles 
A.  Pollock,  Rolla  V.  Watt,  from  the  M.  E.  Church ;  M.  L.  Wal- 
ton, P.  D.  Maddin,  R.  S.  Hyer,  J.  H.  Reynolds,  R.  E.  Black- 
well,  E.  W.  Hines,  J.  R.  Pepper,  E.  C.  Reeves,  H.  H.  White, 
from  the  M.  E.  Church,  South. 

The  minutes  of  the  morning  session  were  read,  corrected, 
and  approved. 

Bishop  John  W.  Hamilton  took  the  chair  as  presiding  officer. 

Letters  were  read  from  the  San  Joaquin  (Cal.)  Valley  Meth- 
odist Ministers'  Association,  the  St.  Joseph  (Mo.)  Methodist 
Ministerial  Alliance,  the  Philadelphia  and  New  Jersey  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Preachers'  Meeting.  Dr.  Harris  presented  a  let- 
ter from  Bishop  Johnson,  which  was  read  and  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Conferences. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Hamilton)  :  It  is  not  necessary  to 
take  any  action  relative  to  the  communications. 

The  Secretary  read  a  telegram  from  Bishop  Cranston  stat- 
ing that  he  was  delayed  by  a  fire  which  broke  out  in  his  house 
just  as  he  expected  to  leave  and  that  he  expects  to  be  here  to- 
morrow morning, 

Secretary  Harris :  I  have  a  letter  from  Bishop  Johnson  in  re- 
gard to  Regional  Conferences  in  relation  to  Africa.  It  seems 
important.  Shall  I  read  it,  or  simply  turn  it  over  to  a  com- 
mittee? 

The  reading  was  called  for  and  the  said  letter  was  read,  as 
follows : 

New  York  City,  April  8,  1918. 
The  Commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  on  the  Joint  Uni- 
fication of  Methodism. 

Dear  Brothers:  It  may  be  that  in  writing  you  concerning  some  of  the 
items  of  the  tentatively  adopted  constitution  now  before  your  Joint  Com- 
mission I  shall  only  reveal  my  ignorance.  My  excuse  is  long  separation 
from  the  periodical  literature  of  our  Church.  At  ihe  risk  of  saying  some 
things  that  may  have  been  often  said,  and  perhaps  fully  considered  by 
you,  I  feel  that  I  must  express  myself  on  one  or  two  points  in  the  pro- 
posed constitution. 

You  will  expect  me  to  be  interested  in  the  proposition  of  the  Central 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


45 


Conferences,  which  touches  the  work  to  which  I  have  been  assigned  by 
the  Church. 

I  am  at  a  loss  to  understand  why  the  Annual  Conferences,  Mission  Con- 
ferences, and  Missions  embracing  the  work  among  colored  people  in  the 
United  States  and  the  Continent  of  Africa  should  constitute  a  Central 
Conference.  The  wording  of  this  section  is  a  trifle  ambiguous.  Does  it 
mean  work  among  colored  people  in  the  United  States  and  work  among 
colored  people  in  the  Continent  of  Africa?  In  this  case,  what  is  meant 
by  "colored"  people  in  Africa?  The  term  "colored"  in  Africa  has  a  dif- 
ferent significance  from  that  which  it  bears  here.  In  many  sections  of 
South  Africa  the  term  "colored"  applies  to  Asiatic  Indians,  Arabs,  and 
people  of  mixed  parentage,  and  does  not  include  the  natives,  who  are 
classified  separately. 

It  seems  to  me  that  there  is  little  in  common  between  the  American 
negro  and  the  Bantu  African.  Of  course  he  is  of  like  color,  but,  if  that 
be  the  bond  of  association,  other  peoples  might  well  be  included.  The 
negroes'  African  ancestors  were  widely  differentiated  linguistically  from 
the  Bantu,  and  all  our  work  in  Africa,  aside  from  that  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean Basin  and  Liberia,  is  among  the  Bantu  tribes. 

Righteously  deprecating  the  hyphen,  we  cannot  classify  the  negro  in  this 
country  otherwise  than  as  an  American.  Our  Constitution  accords  him 
that  high  privilege.  He  is  acclimated  here  and  knows  no  other  home.  He 
is  not  familiar  with  the  language  of  any  black  man  in  Africa  save  that 
of  his  kinsman  of  the  Republic  of  Liberia.  The  Bantu  life  also  is  as 
foreign  to  the  negro  here  as  are  the  Bantu  tongues. 

Domiciled,  acclimated,  and  enfranchised  in  this  country,  the  negro  should 
maintain  his  ecclesiastical  status  here,  whether  that  be  in  a  Regional  or  a 
Central  Conference.    How  can  he  be  transported  to  Africa? 

Nor  should  Bantu  Africa  be  brought  here,  any  more  than  should  the 
peoples  of  the  Orient  or  India  or  other  places  for  which  Central  Confer- 
ences are  proposed. 

The  membership  of  the  four  Mission  Conferences  of  Bantu  Africa  is 
wholly  white,  although  it  is  to  be  hoped  that,  as  the  natives  are  trained, 
their  gifts,  graces,  and  usefulness  will  be  developed  to  a  degree  that  will 
warrant  their  entrance  into  Conference  relationship.  For  many  years  the 
Church  has  had  a  white  Missionary  Bishop  for  Africa.  If  Bantu  Africa 
and  the  American  Negro  are  to  be  associated  in  Central  Conference  re- 
lationship, white  missionaries  and  white  episcopal  supervision  should  not 
be  imposed  upon  the  new  ecclesiastical  body.  There  are  nineteen  An- 
nual Conferences  among  the  "colored"  people  in  the  United  States,  and 
these  Conferences  would,  and  should,  determine  the  complexion  and  ad- 
ministration of  such  Missionary  Conferences  as  might  be  associated  with 
them. 

There  is  one  other  point  that  materially  affects  the  work  under  my 
supervision.  It  is  proposed  to  place  the  Madeira  Islands  with  the  Central 
Conference  including  Europe.  May  I  say  that  the  missionaries  concerned 
would  much  prefer  to  retain  their  present  relationship?  So  earnestly  do 
they  desire  this  that  they  have  cabled  their  wish  for  no  change  both  to 
the  Board  of  Foreign  Missions  and  to  myself.  The  Islands  are  Portu- 
guese. Territorially  the  major  part  of  Bantu  Africa  allotted  to  our  Church 
is  also  Portuguese.  Thus  we  have  many  problems  in  common.  Moreover, 
we  are  linguistically  akin.  Interchange  of  missionaries  is  thus  possible.  I 
earnestly  recommend  that  Madeira  maintain  its  relation  to  the  West  Cen- 
tral Africa  Mission  Conference. 

With  every  good  wish,  yours  very  sincerely,  E.  S.  Johnson. 

Secretary  Harris:  That  relates  to  those  races  that  will  be 
before  us  presently. 


46     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

The  first  paragraph,  which  was  in  the  nature  of  an  apology 
for  offering  the  information,  was  not  read. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Hamilton)  :  What  will  you  do  with 
this  paper? 

Bishop  Mouzon :  I  move  its  reference  to  the  Committee  on 
Conferences. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  carried. 

Bishop  Hoss :  I  have  a  letter  from  Bishop  Candler  express- 
ing deep  regret  that  it  is  impossible  for  him  to  be  here.  His 
youngest  son  starts  for  France  this  week.  He  is  a  lieutenant 
in  the  army  and  his  wife  is  very  anxious  to  see  him  off.  He 
says  that  he  has  so  completely  neglected  his  family  for  thirty 
years  to  serve  the  Church  that  he  feels  he  can  be  excused  in 
this  emergency.  The  young  man  is  a  noble  young  man  of  the 
same  appearance  and  character  as  his  father,  and  I  do  not 
blame  Bishop  Candler  for  not  coming  here.  I  hope  and  pray 
that  the  young  man  will  be  shielded  from  the  calamities  of  war. 
He  is  only  one  of  the  many  of  our  boys  who  have  gone  to  the 
front,  and  it  will  be  a  great  misfortune  if  anything  happens  to 
prevent  him  from  getting  back.  He  is  the  kind  of  a  young- 
man  we  need  in  the  future  upbuilding  of  the  State,  able,  edu- 
cated, upright,  and  I  am  in  close  sympathy  with  Bishop  Candler 
at  the  present  time. 

Secretary  Harris :  I  have  a  resolution  from  the  Methodists  of 
Oklahoma  in  which  they  protest  against  the  adoption  of  the 
plans  proposed  by  this  Committee. 

Bishop  Hoss :  Is  that  signed  by  anybody  ? 

Secretary  Harris :  No. 

Bishop  Hoss :  You  are  perhaps  aware  that  there  was  a  uni- 
versity with  trustees  from  your  Church  and  ours.  Your  trus- 
tees threw  up  their  whole  interest  in  the  university  and  our 
trustees  declined  to  join  with  them  and  surrender  the  property, 
went  into  court  and  sued  for  it,  and  have  a  judgment  in  their 
favor.  The  judgment,  I  think,  states,  however,  that  if  you 
still  wish  to  continue  your  connection  with  it  your  rights  will 
not  be  impaired ;  but  the  fight  was  made  by  our  trustees  and 
they  won  the  case  in  court.  Now  I  don't  know  which  side  it 
is  that  is  doing  this  protesting.  I  should  like  to  know  who  it 
is  that  is  entering  this  protest. 

Claudius  B.  Spencer:  That  was  transmitted  through  me.  It 
was  a  report  adopted  unanimously  in  Oklahoma  City  referring 
to  our  institution  at  Guthrie. 

Secretary  Harris :  That  could  be  improved  by  proper  punctua- 
tion. 

Bishop  Hoss:  I  am  a  full  believer  in  "never  giving  up  anything. 
E.  C.  Reeves :  I  want  to  know  whether  it  is  "you-uns"  or 
"we-uns." 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


47 


Edgar  Blake :  I  move  that  the  paper  be  laid  on  the  table. 
The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

Frank  NefY :  Let  us  not  be  discourteous  to  them.  It  is  not 
going  to  hurt  anybody. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Hamilton)  :  It  seems  that  there  is  a 
doubt,  though  I  declared  that  the  motion  was  carried.  I  will 
take  it  now  that  the  motion  does  not  prevail  and  that  the  paper 
may  be  read. 

Thereupon  the  paper  was  read,  as  follows: 

The  Trustees  of  the  Oklahoma  Methodist  University,  at  Oklahoma 
City,  April  2,  after  the  formal  meeting  of  the  Board  adjourned,  adopted 
the  following  by  unanimous  vote: 

"We  put  ourselves  on  record  as  heartily  in  favor  of  Methodist  unifica- 
tion at  the  earliest  practicable  time.  We  are  much  opposed  to  the  tentative 
program  as  published  in  the  Church  press  and  specify  the  following  points 
of  objection : 

"1.  The  plan  is  destructive  of  our  world-wide  Methodist  economy.  If 
it  is  adopted,  it  will  break  the  Church  up  into  a  fragmentary  and  sec- 
tional administration,  which  will  in  large  part  destroy  the  influence  of  our 
great  Church. 

"2.  The  creation  of  a  new  Methodist  Church  in  which  the  negro  is 
excluded  from  the  full  privileges  accorded  other  races  will  never  be  ac- 
ceptable to  us.  We  hereby  voice  our  protest  against  any  such  arrange- 
ment as  that  suggested  for  the  negro  in  the  plan  published. 

"3.  It  is  our  definite  conviction,  based  on  overwhelming  proof,  that  such 
a  plan  as  the  one  proposed  will  destroy  a  large  part  of  our  interests  in 
Oklahoma  and  cause  our  ministry  and  membership  to  enter  other  Churches 
in  large  numbers." 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Hamilton)  :  What  shall  we  do  with 
that  paper?  Let  it  be  a  matter  of  record.  Is  there  any  other 
miscellaneous  business?  If  not,  we  will  return  to  the  matter 
before  us.    Who  had  the  floor? 

Secretary  Harris :  No  one. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Hamilton)  :  Who  will  have  it? 

A.  J.  Lamar:  May  I  inquire  which  one  of  the  numerous 
propositions  is  before  us? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Hamilton)  :  I  might  call  on  the  Sec- 
retary, but  it  is  my  understanding  that  the  whole  of  Section  6 
is  before  us  for  discussion,  with  the  provision  that  each  per- 
son may  speak  ten  minutes.    Am  I  right? 

Secretary  Harris:  Yes. 

Judge  Charles  A.  Pollock  was  recognized. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  A  point  or  order.    The  Chair  is  in  error. 

Bishop  Denny:  May  I  state  the  position,  having  occupied  the 
chair? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Hamilton)  :  Surely. 
Bishop  Denny :  A  motion  was  made  by  Dr.  Goucher  that 
there  should  be  eight  Regional  Conferences.    A  substitute  was 


48     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

offered  by  Dr.  Penn  that  there  should  be  four,  three  white  and 
one  colored,  and  that  the  lines  should  be  drawn  from  North  to 
South  and  that  the  adjustments  of  the  lines  should  be  deter- 
mined by  the  Committee  on  Conferences,  to  which  the  matter 
should  be  referred,  and  we  were  on  that  substitute. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Hamilton)  :  I  was  not  expected  to 
preside,  and  I  did  not  carry  the  matter  in  my  head,  but  I  re- 
member it  now.   The  substitute  is  before  you. 

Charles  A.  Pollock:  I  want  to  ask  a  question.  This  plan, 
which  is  printed  here  in  large  bold  type,  has  undoubtedly  been 
very  carefully  thought  out;  and  certainly  not  having  been  pres- 
ent at  the  time  when  it  was  evolved,  I  would  like  to  hear 
the  discussion  of  the  one  who  prepared  it — I  would  like  to 
have  him  tell  why  this  was  prepared  and  given  to  us  rather 
than  something  else.  I  do  not  know  how  it  is  this  comes  be- 
fore us  or  who  prepared  it. 

John  M.  Moore:  Dr.  Blake. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Hamilton)  :  They  call  for  you  to  en- 
lighten us,  Dr.  Blake. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  am  not  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Con- 
ferences, but  simply  one  member  of  that  Committee ;  we  have 
nine  others.  Bishop  McDowell  was  the  Chairman  of  the  Com- 
mittee. It  seems  to  me  that  one  question  that  has  been  raised 
this  morning  is  not  quite  germane  to  this  discussion — namely, 
as  to  whether  we  shall  have  Regional  Conferences.  Both  Gen- 
eral Conferences  have  approved  of  the  Regional  Conference 
scheme,  and  it  would  seem  from  the  action  of  both  General 
Conferences  that  the  Commission  was  committed  to  that  by 
virtue  of  that  fact,  and  the  question  for  us  to  consider  is  not  as 
to  whether  we  shall  have  these  Regional  Conferences,  but  how 
many  of  them  and  how  shall  the  boundaries  be  determined  and 
what  areas  shall  they  contain? 

David  G.  Downey:  And  their  boundaries? 

Edgar  Blake:  And  their  boundaries.  I  am  referring  to  this 
particular  section  as  to  their  areas  and  boundaries.  Let  me  say 
concerning  this  matter,  that  the  Committee  om  Conferences 
discussed  this  matter  somewhat,  though  not  at  length  by  the 
entire  Committee,  and  the  matter  was  then  referred  to  a  small- 
er committee  of  four.  That  Committee  made  its  report  to  the 
full  Committee  at  Traverse  City.  There  was  a  long  and  very 
careful  consideration  of  this  matter;  having  before  us  the  sug- 
gestion of  Dr.  Goucher  for  eight,  and  other  suggestions,  it 
was  decided  by  the  Committee,  I  think  with  practical  unanimity, 
to  recommend  that  there  be  six  of  these  Regional  Conferences 
with  the  boundaries  as  indicated  in  the  printed  report.  The  mat- 
ter came  before  the  Joint  Commission  at  Traverse  City,  and  for 
want  of  time  to  give  careful  consideration  to  this  question  it  was 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


49 


referred  back  to  the  committee  for  further  consideration.  The 
matter  was  then  referred  by  the  committee  to  a  subcommittee 
again.  The  subcommittee  held  a  meeting  in  Chicago  and  care- 
fully canvassed  the  whole  situation  again.  We  reported  to  our 
full  committee  at  Savannah,  and  again,  with  a  single  excep- 
tion, the  full  committee  for  a  second  time  voted  to  recommend 
that  there  should  be  six  of  these  Regional  Conferences  with  the 
boundaries  herein  named.  This  is  the  second  time  therefore 
this  matter  has  come  before  you  from  the  committee.  I  doubt 
if  there  is  any  question  this  Commission  will  have  presented 
to  it  that  has  been  more  carefully  considered  and  upon  which 
more  conscientious  work  has  been  done  than  this  list  of  Re- 
gional Conferences  with  their  boundaries  as  we  have  them  here. 
There  are  certain  things  that  guided  the  committee  in  its  work. 
The  committee  did  not  think  for  a  moment  that  it  could  work 
out  an  ideal  arrangement  for  these  Regional  Conferences,  for 
the  reason  that  the  conditions  from  which  and  to  which  we  must 
work  are  not  ideal.  We  had  to  take  what  we  had  and  do  the 
best  we  could  with  it,  all  things  being  considered.  There  were 
certain  guiding  principles  to  which  the  committee  worked.  One 
principle  was  that  we  could  secure  so  far  as  possible  homogene- 
ity of  interest  within  a  given  jurisdiction.  It  seemed  to  us 
that  it  was  really  fundamental  to  the  success  of  the  reunion 
scheme  that  all  the  interests  in  them,  so  far  as  practicable,  should 
be  somewhat  similar.  Second,  it  seemed  to  us  that  it  was  de- 
sirable to  so  arrange  the  boundaries  and  the  areas  of  these  Re- 
gional Conferences  as  to  permit  of  the  easiest  and  most  effective 
administration  of  the  same.  In  other  words,  the  aim  was  to  se- 
cure sufficiently  compact  areas  to  permit  of  reasonable  hand- 
ling. I  do  not  think  we  have  secured  that  in  every  case  as, 
largely  as  we  desired,  but  we  have  made  a  long  step  forward  in 
that  direction.  The  third  guiding  principle  was  that  of  so  arrang- 
ing these  Regional  Conferences  and  Jurisdictions  as  to  avoid 
anything  like  sectional  solidarity,  so  that  there  should  be  no 
solid  North  and  no  solid  South,  no  solid  East  and  no  solid  West. 
That  was  the  thing  we  had  in  mind.  A  new  factor  came  into 
the  case  at  Traverse  City.  There  you  saw  fit  to  change  the  plan 
somewhat  concerning  the  make-up  and  boundaries  of  the  Region- 
al Conferences,  and  you  provided  that  the  delegates  from  the  An- 
nual Conferences  of  a  given  jurisdiction  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence should  constitute  the  Regional  Conference  of  that  jurisdic- 
tion. You  will  recall  that  you  gave  those  delegates  power  to 
elect  bishops  for  their  jurisdiction  and  also  to  control  all  the 
distinctively  regional  affairs.  You  also  decided  that  the  number 
of  delegates  to  these  Annual  Conferences  should  not  be  less 
than  one  hundred.  That  made  it  positively  necessary  for 
4 


50     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

us  in  working  out  the  plans  to  see  to  it  that  so  far  as 
practicable  we  should  secure  such  numerical  balance  among 
these  jurisdictions  as  wrould  give  to  each  the  full  quota  of 
one  hundred.  I  think  the  principle  of  homogeneity  has  been 
recognized  and  has  been  accomplished  in  this  plan.  There  was 
a  time  when  seventy  per  cent  of  the  population  of  New 
England  was  of  foreign  birth.  I  think  now  over  fifty- 
five  per  cent  of  the  population  of  New  York,  Pennsyl- 
vania, and  New  Jersey  is  of  foreign  parentage.  Forty- 
nine  per  cent  of  the  entire  foreign-born  people  in  this  coun- 
try is  located  in  that  division.  The  great  foreign  population  of 
x\merica  settles  in  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  and  New  Jersey. 
Indeed,  I  believe  seventy  per  cent  is  too  little.  I  think  eighty 
per  cent  is  more  nearly  correct.  Forty-five  per  cent  of  the  en- 
tire manufacturing  output  of  America  is  in  that  section.  If 
you  will  study  the  subject  closely,  you  will  find  that  that  par- 
ticular division  represents  as  high  a  type  of  homogeneity  of 
interest  as  any  division  formed.  I  do  not  need  to  go  forward. 
Brethren,  I  submit  that  the  thing  to  guide  us  here  is  neither 
prejudice  nor  sentiment.  It  seems  to  me  the  only  thing  for  us 
to  do  is  to  face  the  facts  and  to  decide  the  matter  on  the  basis 
of  fact.  I  have  not  found  any  scheme  in  which  Delaware, 
Maryland,  the  District  of  Columbia,  Virginia,  and  West  Vir- 
ginia are  not  put  together.  I  do  not  think  the  matter  is  of 
great  consequence  as  to  whether  Washington  falls  in  the  ju- 
risdiction in  which  our  Church  has  the  majority  of  member- 
ship or  the  Southern  Church  has  the  majority.  The  question 
is,  Does  it  fit  in  the  scheme  and  does  it  contribute  its 
part  to  the  homogeneity  of  the  thing?  I  should  be  ashamed  to 
haggle  for  a  moment  over  the  question  as  to  where  the  capital 
of  the  nation  should  be  located.  The  capital  of  the  nation  will 
not  be  swallowed  up  by  any  particular  jurisdiction.  Thank 
God  it  belongs  to  all  America !  Now  concerning  some  of  the 
other  jurisdictions:  I  need  not  speak  of  the  second,  third,  and 
fourth  ones,  but  in  regard  to  the  fifth  one.  Some  criticism  has 
been  made  concerning  that,  but  it  is  doubtful  if  there  is  a  single 
area  that  is  more  homogeneous  than  this  Northwest.  The  ob- 
jection seems  to  be  simply  to  the  size.  I  think  there  are  eight 
or  nine  great  trunk  lines  that  run  east  and  west  in  that  area.  In 
some  respects  it  has  as  easy  transportation  from  the  standpoint 
of  travel  as  any  other  region.  I  think  the  size  of  this  area 
would  have  been  cut  down  if  we  could  have  done  so  and  re- 
tained the  numerical  balance  with  the  other  jurisdictions.  Now, 
let  me  say  one  more  word. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Hamilton)  :  I  take  it,  from  your 
putting  both  your  speech  and  your  illumination  of  facts  to- 
gether, you  have  run  over  your  time. 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


5i 


On  motion  of  Judge  Pollock,  duly  seconded  and  put  to  a 
vote,  the  time  of  the  speaker  was  extended. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  have  only  just  received  the  details  of  Bishop 
McDowell's  regional  plan.  I  have  not  had  time  as  yet  to  make 
a  thorough  study  of  it.  But  even  a  casual  glance  would  indicate 
that  there  are  certain  results  of  his  scheme  that  make  it  undesir- 
able. If  we  agree  with  Dr.  Spencer  that  a  State  should  be  kept 
intact  in  the  regional  plan,  then  Bishop  McDowell's  scheme  is 
seriously  defective.  For  illustration,  the  State  of  Pennsylvania 
would  fall  into  three  separate  Regional  Jurisdictions,  and  the 
State  of  New  York  would  be  divided  between  three  jurisdictions, 
and  some  of  the  other  States  would  be  divided  likewise.  If  there 
is  any  value  in  the  retention  of  the  State  as  a  unit,  as  most  of 
us  will  agree,  then  it  would  seem  to  be  a  serious  objection  to 
any  plan  that  it  divides  a  State.  Again,  his  plan  overlooks  the 
value  of  establishing  a  numerical  balance  between  jurisdictions. 
For  instance,  I  find  one  jurisdiction  that  would  have  a  total 
membership  of  only  212,000,  and  on  the  basis  of  membership 
would  be  entitled  to  only  thirty  delegates  in  the  General  Con- 
ference ;  but  under  our  proposal  that  every  Regional  Confer- 
ence shall  be  entitled  to  one  hundred  delegates,  the  jurisdiction 
which  I  have  mentioned  would  have  a  representation  three  and 
one- third  times  greater  than  its  membership  would  entitle  it 
to. 

A.  W.  Harris :  Why  not  change  that  ? 

Edgar  Blake :  Change  it ;  you  would  still  give  thirty  dele- 
gates authority  to  elect  a  bishop,  or  a  majority  of  those  thirty, 
say  sixteen,  to  legislate  for  the  distinctively  regional  affairs  of 
its  jurisdiction. 

David  G.  Downey :  I  think  as  Commissioners  we  need  to  keep 
one  or  two  things  clearly  in  our  thoughts.  The  thing  I  feared 
would  happen  has  happened.  That  is  to  say,  certain  things 
were  tentatively  agreed  upon,  subject  entirely  to  agreements 
upon  matters  that  had  not  been  discussed,  and  now  we  are 
told  that  having  tentatively  agreed  upon  some  things,  such  agree- 
ment must  be  practically  binding  upon  things  that  have  not  been 
discussed.  That  is  to  say,  the  practical  outcome  is,  you  have 
agreed  upon  certain  things  but  tentatively,  and  these  other 
things  on  which  you  have  not  agreed  hang  upon  them  and  there- 
fore you  must  accept  them.  This  morning  somebody  indicated 
that  it  was  a  strange  thing  that  we  should  talk  about  the  num- 
ber of  Regional  Conferences,  but,  brethren,  I  think  I  am  cor- 
rect in  the  statement  that  the  number  of  Regional  Conferences 
has  never  been  agreed  to,  not  even  tentatively.  I  think  it  has 
not  been  discussed  before  the  full  Commission.  We  asked 
in  Traverse  City  for  certain  things  to  be  furnished  us.  We 
asked  for  a  diagram  practically.    We  were  told  that  it  would 


52     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


be  furnished  us,  but  it  never  has  been.    I  called  attention  to 
that  fact  at  Savannah,  but  this  information  has  not  been  given 
to  us  and  a  statement  was  made  that  there  had  not  been  time 
to  prepare  it  and  we  haven't  received  it  yet ;  and  now  we  are  met 
with  the  statement  that  no  particular  plan  has  been  so  thorough- 
ly considered  and  discussed  as  this  plan  of  the  Regional  Con- 
ferences.   That  unquestionably  is  true  with  reference  to  the  sub- 
committee, but  unquestionably  it  is  not  so  with  respect  to  this 
Commission  as  a  body.   We  have  never  had  the  information  on 
which  we  could  study  the  plan  which  we  ought  to  have,  and 
which  is  necessary  for  us  to  have  in  making  up  a  competent 
statement.    I  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  this  was  adopt- 
ed at  Traverse  City :  "The  foregoing  is  contingent  on  agree- 
ment on  the  matters  yet  to  be  considered."    This  matter  is  yet 
to  be  considered,  and  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  give  it  proper 
consideration.    I  am  perfectly  free  to  confess  that  I  much  pre- 
fer the  outline  of  the  diagram  presented  here  by  Dr.  Spencer 
to  the  general  statement  that  we  should  have  eight  or  six  Re- 
gional Conferences.    It  seems  to  me  the  plan  presented  by  Dr. 
Spencer  is  more  likely  to  give  us  homogeneity  of  interest  and 
unity  of  administration.    I  am  not  so  much  impressed  with  the 
argument  that  we  must  always  keep  a  State  intact,  and  have 
Conference  boundaries  coinciding  with  State  boundaries.  I 
am  sure  we  understand  that  there  are  mountain  ranges  run- 
ning through  States  that  divide  the  eastern  from  the  western 
part,  and  it  would  be  much  more  likely  to  get  homogeneity  of 
administration  in  some  States  by  not  having  the  State  entirely 
in  one  Regional  Jurisdiction.    I  am  sure  Region  No.  5,  no  mat- 
ter how  many  railroads  it  has,  would  never  have  anything  like 
homogeneity  of  interest  or  unity  of  administration.    I  am  not 
attempting  to  argue  whether  we  should  accept  this  or  that  or 
some  other  plan,  but  the  whole  matter  is  now  up  to  us  for  the 
first  time.    It  is  printed  in  large  type  in  the  paper  sent  out  by 
the  Secretary,  which  shows  that  it  has  not  been  tentatively 
adopted.    And  if  we  do  not  desire  to  adopt  it  in  the  form  in 
which  it  is  presented,  we  should  not  be  held  from  our  privileges 
by  saying  that  there  are  other  things  which  you  must  change. 
Of  course,  everything  must  be  harmonized  in  what  we  adopt, 
but  this  matter  of  the  Regional  Conferences  is  basic,  and  it 
seems  to  me  the  matter  is  before  us  in  a  perfectly  full  and 
frank  way  for  discussion.    I  wish  we  had  the  information  we 
ought  to  have  and  that  we  have  asked  for  several  times.  I 
simply  state  that  from  the  facts  presented  I  much  prefer  either 
the  plan  presented  by  Dr.  Spencer  or  the  plan  suggested  by  Dr. 
Goucher  or  Bishop  McDowell  to  the  plan  presented  by  the  Com- 
mittee.   I  know  that  we  shall  have  to  be  exceedingly  careful  to 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


53 


avoid  creating  riew  and  greater  sectionalism  than  what  we 
have. 

Bishop  Hoss :  I  did  not  have  the  privilege  of  being  present 
at  Traverse  City.  I  saw  the  reports,  however,  that  went  out 
from  the  meeting  at  that  place,  and  I  noticed  that  they  agreed 
on  some  things.  I  noticed  it  was  declared  that  it  was  not  worth 
while  to  look  for  anything  from  me,  that  I  was  a  Bourbon,  that 
I  was  classified  along  with  Bishop  Denny.  Now  there  may 
have  been  some  justice  in  putting  Bishop  Denny  in  that  sort  of 
a  place,  but  it  was  most  preposterous  that  any  one  should  say 
that  I  was  anything  like  a  Bourbon.  I  am  an  East  Tennes- 
seean.  There  is  one  thing  about  East  Tennessee  that  I  am 
frank  to  say:  Nobody  is  neutral  down  there.  Everybody  is 
on  one  side  or  the  other.  Sometimes  they  manage  to  get  on 
both  sides  before  the  conflict  is  over.  I  know  a  good  many 
men  who  fought  on  both  sides  in  the  Civil  War,  and  I  know 
one  who  did  that  is  now  drawing  a  Federal  pension,  for  he 
was  two  years  in  the  Federal  army.  Furthermore,  I  wish  to 
confess  that  I  am  not  scared  by  sectionalism.  You  cannot 
abolish  the  facts  of  geography.  The  north  pole  is  in  the  same 
place  that  it  was  when  Dr.  Cook  discovered  it.  By  the  way, 
Dr.  Cook  is  a  Methodist,  I  understand.  He  didn't  belong  to 
our  Church,  however.  I  have  crossed  the  equator  several  times, 
and  without  any  formal  instructions  from  anybody  I  find  it  is 
in  the  same  place  now  that  it  was  when  I  first  made  the  trip 
across  it.  You  cannot  guard  the  question  of  homogeneity  with- 
out having  reference  to  geography.  I  do  not  object  to  being 
called  a  Southerner  at  all.  I  said  to  Dr.  Hamilton  that  I 
wouldn't  be  a  resident  of  Mount  Zion  unless  it  had  a  southern 
exposure,  and  he  said  that  according  to  his  information  Mount 
Zion  was  on  the  side  of  the  North.  He  was  always  ready  with 
an  answer.  I  am  glad  of  the  fact  that  I  am  an  East  Tennessee- 
an.  I  like  it  better  than  any  part  of  the  country.  I  love  all  the 
people  in  it.  As  I  said  a  while  ago,  they  are  all  on  one  side  or 
the  other.  The  Western  Reserve  of  Ohio  never  held  a  com- 
pany of  people  who  were  more  rigidly  Republican  than  they  are 
more  rigidly  members  of  your  Church,  and  there  are  never  any 
more  pronounced  Southern  Methodists  than  are  hidden  away 
in  those  same  mountain  ranges.  We  used  to  have  an  old  figure 
up  there  named  Gabriel  Page.  He  was  rather  pronounced  dur- 
ing the  war,  and  had  to  get  out  of  East  Tennessee  when  the 
war  was  over.  It  was  made  uncomfortable  for  him,  and  he 
went  up  to  Virginia  and  rented  a  place  near  Emory  and  Henry 
College.  While  I  was  there,  the  presiding  elder  from  your 
Church,  with  a  pocketful  of  missionary  money,  made  a  tour 
through  the  country  and  stopped  at  Zion  Church,  a  little  con- 
gregation of  seventy-five  to  eighty  people  just  above  Bristol. 


54     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

The  people  were  divided  and  all  split  up,  and  our  people 
thought  that  if  Zion  went  to  pieces  the  cause  was  lost,  so  they 
sent  for  Page  to  come  and  answer.  And  he  took  the  text,  "Who 
is  this  uncircumcised  Philistine  that  cometh  out  against  the 
armies  of  the  living  God?"  There  was  a  good  deal  of  bitter- 
ness at  the  close  of  the  war.  My  father  was  a  Union  man,  as 
yours  was — just  as  strong  a  Union  man  as  could  be  in  that 
country.  He  had  been  a  devoted  follower  of  Henry  Clay  all 
his  life,  and  he  died  with  a  belief  that  the  country  had  suffered 
a  great  loss  when  Clay  was  not  elected  President.  But  after 
the  war  was  over  he  couldn't  vote  the  Republican  ticket.  He 
held  his  nose  and  voted  the  Democratic  ticket  for  fifteen  years, 
but  he  always  did  it  under  protest.  I  have  three  brothers-in- 
law  in  the  North  who  were  captains  in  the  Confederate  Army. 
My  father  didn't  much  relish  taking  them  into  the  family, 
though  he  became  very  much  attached  to  them  before  the  end 
came.  He  sent  me  up  to  the  Ohio  Wesleyan  University  to  get 
my  education,  and  I  had  a  most  delightful  time  there.  Some- 
times it  was  pretty  hot,  but  they  didn't  make  it  any  hotter  for 
me  than  I  did  for  them.  I  have  the  most  delightful  memory 
of  William  G.  Williams  and  Frederick  Merrick,  who  were 
saints  on  earth  if  there  ever  were  any.  They  were  bitter  North- 
erners and  Republicans ;  but  I  don't  think  of  them  now  that 
way,  and  I  don't  see  why  we  should  hold  such  sectional  preju- 
dices. You  cannot  maintain  homogeneity  without  reference 
to  the  geography.  You  can't  do  it.  It  is  just  as  necessary  to 
keep  a  geographical  outline  in  your  mind  as  anything  can  be, 
if  you  are  going  to  preserve  your  homogeneity.  While  I  am 
confessing  for  myself,  I  may  as  well  confess  for  Bishop  Denny. 
His  old  grandfather  was  in  your  Church  and  lived  until  ninety 
years  old.  I  suspect  he  had  his  prejudices  pretty  bitter  too. 
He  was  the  father  of  John  A.  Collins,  who  figured  so  promi- 
nently in  the  General  Conference  of  1844.  I  know  Bishop 
Denny  is  very  proud  of  him.  I  don't  know  whether  you  believe 
that  is  so  or  not,  because  he  is  so  much  of  a  Southerner  that 
you  doubt  whether  he  could  be  proud  of  anybody  on  the  other 
side ;  but  I  know  he  has  a  very  profound  reverence  for  his 
grandfather.  We  are  all  creatures  of  local  environment.  We 
are  all  more  or  less  affected  by  environment.  The  man 
who  says  he  is  not  does  not  understand  himself,  and  does 
not  know  what  he  is  talking  about.  I  am  not  responsible  for 
the  fact  that  I  was  born  in  Tennessee  any  more  than  I  am  for 
the  fact  that  my  old  Dutch  grandfather  was  born  in  Pennsyl- 
vania and  moved  down  to  Tennessee.  By  the  way,  he  got 
away  from  Pennsylvania  before  slavery  was  abolished  up  there 
and  he  brought  all  his  slaves  with  him.  My  mother's  folk  were 
Virginians,  and  they  emancipated  their  slaves,  but  this  old 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


55 


Dutchman,  who  had  a  keen  eye  for  the  main  chance,  kept  all 
his  to  hand  and  gave  them  to  his  children.  He  was  a  very 
good  man,  but  he  had  his  prejudices,  and  came  away  from 
Pennsylvania  because  of  that  fact  before  slavery  was  finally 
abolished  in  that  State.  Now  I  wish  to  say  some  other  things 
while  I  am  on  this  matter  in  this  general  way.  We  have  got 
to  have  regard  to  the  prejudices  of  people  in  any  plan  or  scheme 
we  may  bring  in.  I  saw  a  statement  in  the  paper  the  other 
day  dealing  with  the  question  of  the  color  line,  and  saying  that 
no  group  of  people  in  the  Church  had  the  right  to  determine 
for  themselves  the  things  that  concern  their  own  interests  in 
the  Church,  and  everything  must  be  determined  by  the  Church 
for  everybody  in  it.  I  do  not  believe  a  word  of  that.  I  be- 
lieve as  fully  as  Bishop  Hamilton,  and  that  is  pretty  strong, 
that  you  cannot  turn  a  man  out  of  the  Church  without  his  own 
permission.  If  he  has  been  a  decent  member  of  his  Church 
and  has  led  a  godly,  upright  life,  you  cannot  by  legal  enactment 
of  any  sort  assign  him  to  one  division  rather  than  another. 
You  may  put  him  in  a  different  Conference  if  you  want  to,  but 
that  does  not  affect  the  question  of  his  relationship.  I  believe 
as  fully  as  you  do  that  the  350,000  colored  men  and  women 
who  are  members  of  your  Church  have  identically  the  same 
rights  as  anybody  else,  and  if  they  are  put  out  they  have  a 
right  to  sue  you  and  get  their  share  of  the  property,  every 
dollar  of  it  they  are  entitled  to,  just  as  much  as  we  did  in  1844 
and  just  as  we  would  again  if  you  would  attempt  that  game 
with  us.  I  say  all  that,  and  I  believe  it  as  fully  as  anybody 
can  believe  it.  I  have  the  kindliest  feeling  for  the  colored 
brethren,  but  I  confess  it  does  not  make  me  feel  comfortable 
for  some  of  them  to  write  about  the  matter  as  they  have  been 
doing. 

Bishop  Hamilton :  You  have  a  lot  of  friends  among  them. 

Bishop  Hoss:  Yes,  and  they  love  me  in  spite  of  all  my  faults; 
and  that  is  the  only  way  I  want  people  to  love  me.  If  they 
don't  love  me  in  spite  of  my  faults,  I  will  excuse  them  from 
loving  me  at  all.  Now,  brethren,  I  don't  know  what  We  are 
going  to  do.  Here  we  have  this  petition  that  was  offered  here 
to-day,  and  what  does  that  petition  mean?  It  means  that  a 
large  group  of  excellent  brethren  down  there  who  are  leaders 
in  your  Church,  who  stand  at  the  forefront  in  educational  mat- 
ters, are  very  much  afraid  that  they  are  going  to  come  under 
the  dominion  of  the  Southern  Methodists  down  there.  You 
talk  about  Southerners  being  prejudiced  and  alarmed  about 
possibilities  of  that  sort.  They  are  not  half  as  much  alarmed 
as  these  people  are.  At  the  General  Conference  at  Minneapolis 
you  made  special  provision  for  taking  care  of  your  people  who 
happened  to  drift  to  the  South,  and  you  warned  them  against 


56     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

the  possibility  of  getting  into  our  Church.  That  is  a  matter 
of  record.  I  do  not  object  to  Southern  Methodists  going  to 
your  Church  when  they  go  up  North,  and  if  I  went  up  there 
again  I  would  do  again  as  I  did  when  I  was  a  boy.  I  was  a 
member  of  your  Church  all  the  time  I  was  up  there.  Our  peo- 
ple who  go  North  have  this  reason  for  not  joining  your  Church, 
which  I  don't  think  you  have  among  us.  I  never  heard  in  my 
life  from  any  one  of  our  pulpits  a  single  speech  to  which  any 
Northerner  could  lawfully  object.  I  didn't  hear  that  old  broth- 
er Page,  I  just  heard  of  him.  That  is  one  side,  as  well  as  the 
other ;  the  narrowness  is  not  all  with  us.  You  have  it,  and  we 
have  it,  and  we  both  have  enough  and  to  spare.  If  you  have  any 
lack  among  you,  let  us  know  and  we  will  supply  you  on  short  or- 
der. I  sincerely  love  all  Methodist  Churches.  I  have  been  pro- 
foundly interested  in  this  question  of  union.  I  would  that  it  were 
possible  for  me  to  relieve  all  of  the  difficulties  of  the  situation 
and  bring  all  Methodists  together.  But,  brethren,  we  have 
never  known  as  serious  a  task  as  this  before.  We  have  come 
to  face  it.  Don't  be  sorry  sometimes  that  everybody  cannot  be 
as  wise  as  you  are,  that  the  Colored  Methodists,  in  particular, 
are  not  as  wise  as  you  are. 
Bishop  Hamilton :  No. 

Bishop  Hoss :  I  confess  I  sometimes  do  feel  sorry  everybody 
is  not  as  wise  as  I  am!  These  questions  are  up,  and  I  pray 
God  that  we  may  not  have  any  hardships.  If  we  cannot  agree 
about  this  question  before  us  (and  I  do  not  see  how  we  are 
going  to  agree  with  the  articles  that  have  been  published  in  the 
newspapers  the  last  few  weeks),  I  don't  want  to  go  into  a 
Church  where  I  am  abused.  I  don't  take  it  very  kindly  when 
it  is  affirmed  that  I  am  antagonistic  to  the  colored  people,  that 
I  am  against  them.  I  have  written  more  against  mob  law  as 
applied  to  colored  people  than  any  man  in  the  Southern  States. 
I  have  written  more  vehemently  and  more  persistently.  Some 
brethren  who  are  just  waking  up  to  the  situation  forget  the 
fact  that  I  always  did.  But  I  know  the  difficulty  in  the  way 
on  our  side  and  on  your  side.  Do  you  know  what  we  have 
done  since  the  war  for  the  colored  people?  You  have  had 
every  opportunity  to  give  them  civil  promotion,  and  you  have 
not  done  it.  You  have  never  sent  one  of  them  to  Congress, 
and  there  have  been  many  of  them  among  you  intellectually 
worthy  of  that  honor.  You  have  never  sent  one  of  them  to  the 
United  States  Senate,  and  you  are  not  going  to  do  it.  You 
have  never  elected  one  of  them  a  bishop. 

Bishop  Hamilton :  O  yes,  we  have. 

Bishop  Hoss :  O  no,  you  have  not ;  I  know  about  that. 
You  elected  them  bishops  and  sent  them  to  Africa.  You  would 
be  willing  to  elect  a  score  of  them  to  send  to  Africa,  but  you 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


57 


have  never  had  one  of  them  preside  over  a  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  here.  It  is  not  our  Church  alone 
that  is  to  be  censured,  and  I  do  not  think  you  are  going"  to 
elect  any  of  them  full  bishops  in  your  Church.  I  do  not  think 
you  will.  I  may  be  wrong,  but  this  is  my  judgment.  I  sat  be- 
hind Dr.  Buckley  in  the  General  Conference  at  Cleveland  when 
they  were  considering  the  election  of  a  colored  bishop.  Dr.  Buck- 
ley was  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Episcopacy,  and  he 
brought  in  a  report  that  the  time  had  come  when  it  would  be 
just  and  right  to  elect  a  colored  man  to  the  episcopacy;  but 
there  were  three  young  fellows  sitting  behind  me  and  two  very 
fine  ladies,  and  one  of  them  said:  "There  is  nothing  in  that/' 
Now  don't  misunderstand.  I  say  there  are  colored  men  who 
are  worthy  of  that  honor,  and  whom  it  would  be  proper  to 
elect;  but  as  long  as  you  have  as  many  candidates  for  the  office 
as  there  usually  are,  I  don't  think  you  are  going  to  elect  a  col- 
ored man.  I  have  spoken  frankly,  but  let  me  say  right  here 
that  this  plan  before  you  now,  about  which  you  are  hesitating 
and  about  which  seventy-five  colored  editors  in  South  Carolina 
are  protesting  and  objecting — that  it  not  our  scheme.  That  is 
the  Rogers  plan.  It  is  not  ours.  If  you  want  to  reject  it,  re- 
ject your  own  plan,  but  have  the  frankness  to  say  so  and  don't 
charge  it  to  us. 

Bishop  Hamilton :  We  don't  intend  to  do  that. 

Bishop  Hoss :  I  don't  think  you  do,  but  the  other  fellows  will 
do  it;  and  I  want  now  to  protest  against  that  being  charged  to 
us.  Let  us  hope  that  somehow  or  other,  in  God's  own  way  and 
in  God's  own  time,  he  is  going  to  work  this  thing  out.  When- 
ever a  great  thing  is  up,  sometimes  for  a  long  time  it  looks  as 
if  it  could  never  come  to  pass,  but  at  last  God  puts  his  hand  to 
it.  O  God,  put  Thine  hand  into  our  troubles,  give  us  the  right 
spirit,  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  help  us  to  love  one 
another,  to  be  gentle  with  one  another,  to  be  forbearing  toward 
one  another,  to  be  kind  toward  one  another,  and  in  Thine  own 
way  bring  the  right  thing  to  pass. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Hamilton)  :  If  none  of  you  have  any- 
thing to  say,  I  would  like  to  say  a  word  in  behalf  of  New  Eng- 
land. I  am  not  going  to  make  a  speech  on  the  whole  subject. 
I  will  hold  my  watch  and  will  use  about  two  and  a  half  minutes. 
I  would  not  rise  now,  except  that  nobody  else  seems  disposed 
to  do  so.  This  is  what  I  want  to  say:  I  have  great  trouble 
with  my  homogeneity.  I  was  born  in  Virginia,  but  that  doesn't 
seem  to  count  with  you  brethren.  Now,  in  the  matter  of  ge- 
ography, I  am  in  favor  of  mountains  and  rivers  and  lakes  and 
prairies,  but  I  am  not  in  favor  of  that  in  the  Christian  Church 
nor  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  I  want  only  one  homo- 
geneity there.    That  is  what  I  am  after.   Now  the  trouble  you 


58     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

have  arranged  in  this  plan  with  New  England  is  that  New  Eng- 
land is  torn  off,  a  section  of  this  country  with  500,000  more  for- 
eigners than  there  are  natives  in  New  England,  and  you  have  at 
the  same  time  given  us,  by  the  speech  of  Brother  Blake,  with 
which  I  agree,  a  city  problem.  We  will  never  settle  the  question 
in  New  England  until  the  whole  Church  takes  a  hand  in  the  set- 
tlement of  it;  and  when  you  begin  to  segregate  the  Church,  about 
the  worst  section  we  will  have  to  deal  with  will  not  be  the 
South,  but  will  be  New  England.  I  have  been  there  forty  years, 
I  know  every  mountain  and  lake  in  it,  and  I  tell  you  if  you 
turn  over  to  the  foreigners  this  matter  of  homogeneity,  where 
is  Methodism  going  to  be?  The  only  salvation  in  New  England 
is  in  the  whole  Church  taking  hold  of  it,  and  you  brethren  in 
the  South  ought  to  do  it.  You  have  no  foreigners  relatively  in 
the  South  to-day.  Look  at  the  cities  of  New  York  and  Boston 
with  such  majorities  of  the  population  foreign-speaking.  I 
went  out  to  San  Francisco  and  made  a  special  plea,  after  all 
the  appropriations  had  been  made,  for  the  city  of  Boston ;  and 
after  they  heard  the  plea  they  appointed  me  Chairman  of  a 
Committete  and/  Lieutenant  Governor  Wallace,  Secretary,  to 
originate  a  new  scheme  in  appropriation — namely,  instead  of 
distributing  here  and  there  one  hundred  dollars,  two  hundred 
dollars,  or  five  hundred  dollars,  we  would  plan  to  take  a  certain 
city  and  give  an  appropriation  that  would  amount  to  something 
to  put  it  on  its  feet.  We  voted  $25,000  to  be  the  lowest  sum 
to  be  appropriated,  and  the  first  $25,000  was  voted  to  Boston 
and  has  gone  there.  If  you  are  going  to  cut  New  England  off 
in  such  a  way  that  the  homogeneity  has  to  take  care  of  New 
England,  and  elect  a  bishop  down  there,  it  is  the  last  place  in 
the  world  I  want  to  be  bishop  if  I  have  to  take  care  of  New 
England  simply  on  the  resources  of  New  England.  That  is 
all  I  want  to  say,  and  when  I  come  to  speak  on  the  matter  gen- 
erally I  think  I  can  say  something  of  this  kind  about  some  other 
sections;  but  you  brethren  don't  know  the  problems  of  the  North 
and  possibly  we  don't  know  yours,  and  here  is  a  problem  that 
must  be  a  national  one  and  the  whole  Church  must  somehow 
or  other  help  us  to  save  New  England. 

Edwin  M.  Randall:  It  is  very  little  I  wish  to  say  this  afternoon 
to  take  the  time  of  this  Commission,  rather  to  reemphasize 
something  I  said  at  Traverse  City  in  regard  to  the  proposed 
organization  of  the  Church  into  these  Regional  Conferences.  I 
wish  first  to  express  my  regret  with  Mr.  Downey  that  the  in- 
formation we  asked  for  at  that  time  and  which  we  were  as- 
sured would  be  given  to  us  has  not  been  furnished.  It  would 
help  us  some  to  work  out  some  suggestion  that  might  make 
this  plan  more  practicable.  But  it  falls  to  a  few  representa- 
tives of  our  Commission  who  hail  from  the  largest  and  most 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


59 


impracticable  division  there  is  in  the  whole  plan,  not  only  be- 
cause the  size  of  it  is  so  great  but  because  certain  portions 
of  it  are  as  remote  from  certain  other  portions  as  any  portion  of 
the  other  five  regions  is  from  any  other  portion  of  the  entire 
five  regions.  More  than  that,  it  is  a  region  wherein  we  have 
before  us  immense  problems  comparable  to,  if  not  surpassing, 
those  of  New  England.  We  have  there  the  one  great  frontier 
remaining  in  this  country.  Alaska  is  embraced  within  our  re- 
gion ;  and  I  saw  a  statement  not  long  ago,  based  upon  the  of- 
ficial figures  of  the  United  States  Government,  that  there  is  in 
Alaska  land  suitable  for  agricultural  purposes  sufficient  in 
amount  to  sustain  a  future  population  of  ten  millions  of  people. 
That  fact  is  almost  too  great  for  ordinary  persons  to  appreciate. 
The  magnitude  of  that  country  and  the  amount  of  it  capable 
of  agricultural  development  are  scarcely  dreamed  of,  and  tl  at 
is  only  one  of  a  number  of  simply  immense  resources  of  that 
country.  There  and  in  the  Rocky  Mountain  region  and  the 
Pacific  Coast  region,  to  say  nothing  of  the  great  plains  region, 
we  have  before  us  almost  illimitable  problems  in  the  future 
development  of  our  Church,  and  we  have  the  smallest  mem- 
bership of  any  of  the  great  divisions  proposed  for  the  Church. 
We  are  the  youngest  and  therefore  the  weakest  in  financial  re- 
sources. We  need  the  entire  Church  behind  us,  the  entire  Church 
needs  to  be  behind  us  in  the  great  problems  we  have  before  us, 
and  our  people  out  there  do  not  feel  that  it  would  be  good  states- 
manship to  set  us  off  by  ourselves  in  this  manner.  We  do  not 
feel  that  territorially  we  make  an  area  that  is  practicable  under  the 
plan  that  we  have  in  this  scheme  before  us.  Moreover,  we  do 
not  wish  to  be  set  off  and  separated  from  the  rest  of  the  Church, 
and  there  is  a  feeling  among  our  people  out  there — a  very  pro- 
found feeling — that  the  result  of  this  plan  will  be  the  segrega- 
tion of  various  units  of  the  Church  and  that  it  will  make  for 
division  among  us  and  work  against  unification,  that  it  is  not 
wholesome,  that  it  is  not  for  efficiency  and  will  not  best  work 
out  the  mission  of  our  Church  to  this  land  and  to  the  world.  I 
am  free  to  confess,  after  such  examination  as  I  have  been  able 
to  make  of  it,  that  I  am  more  impressed  by  the  plan  proposed 
by  Dr.  Spencer,  and  I  am  much  better  impressed  with  the  sug- 
gestion that  came  from  Bishop  McDowell.  I  wish  those  plans 
might  be  worked  out  with  such  data  as  have  been  gathered  by 
the  committee  that  has  these  matters  in  charge,  and  any  other 
data  available.  I  regret  very  profoundly  that  we  are  in  this 
situation  so  near  to  the  meeting  of  the  General  Conference  of 
the  M.  E.  Church,  South,  and  I  am  profoundly  impressed  that 
the  proposition  that  is  before  us  is  not  what  we  ought  to  have, 
that  it  is  not  practical,  and  that  it  will  not  meet  with  the  support 
of  the  brethren  in  our  Church,  at  least  in  our  great  Northwest. 


60     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  Dr.  Downey  referred  to  some  promised  data, 
and  so  did  Dr.  Randall,  but  I  don't  know  what  they  mean.  In 
the  meeting  at  Savannah  we  had  the  distribution  given  and  the 
overlapping  jurisdictional  lines.  We  all  received  that  data. 
What  promised  data  do  they  refer  to? 

Bishop  McDowell :  In  addition  to  that  I  ought  to  say,  as 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Conferences,  that  we  did  expect 
to  put  into  your  hands  more  complete  statements  as  to  Re- 
gional distributions,  but  we  are  not  able  to  do  that. 

Edgar  Blake :  It  is  a  matter  of  regret  to  me  that  this  additional 
information  has  not  been  procured.  If  it  had  been,  we  wouldn't 
have  some  trouble  that  we  now  have.  New  England  stands  first 
in  number  of  members  and  second  in  financial  resources.  The  sec- 
tion that  Dr.  Randall  talks  about  stands  third.  They  have  been 
talking  about  Alaska.  How  long  have  we  been  in  Alaska?  I 
think  twenty-five  years,  and  we  have  107  members  up  there. 

Edwin  M.  Randall :  May  I  say  a  word  as  a  matter  of  privilege  ? 
When  this  report  from  the  committees  was  brought  before  us  at 
Traverse  City,  in  connection  with  the  discussion  there  were 
statements  made  of  facts  and  figures  that  led  me  to  believe  that 
the  committee  was  in  possession  of  data  showing  the  member- 
ship of  the  various  Conferences  in  the  two  Churches  as  re- 
lated not  only  to  Conference  lines  but  also  to  State  lines. 

Bishop  McDowell :  That  was  given  at  Savannah. 

Rolla  V.  Watt :  That  is  what  I  referred  to. 

Edwin  M.  Randall:  What  was  that  information? 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  It  shows  the  membership  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
in  the  different  States  and  sections. 

Edwin  M.  Randall :  It  gives  the  data  as  to  the  divisions  made, 
but  not  the  data  that  would  be  used  in  making  those  divisions 
and  in  making  up  the  aggregate. 

Alexander  Simpson,  Jr. :  How  could  that  be  done  ?  Every 
man  would  have  a  new  lot  of  figures. 

Edwin  M.  Randall :  There  are  the  original  data  from  which 
you  can  make  any  grouping  that  you  see  fit. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  I  live  out  in  the  district  that  Dr.  Randall  re- 
fers to,  and  I  know  that  there  is  more  criticism  with  reference 
to  that  general  plan  than  anywhere  else ;  but  that  criticism  comes 
from  those  who  have  not  studied  the  question  for  one-tenth  of 
the  time  that  we  have.  I  do  not  think  the  criticism  is  very  seri- 
ous. I  rather  like  some  of  the  suggestions  of  Dr.  Spencer's  propo- 
sition with  reference  to  the  Border  and  the  West.  I  am  satis- 
fied we  are  not  going  to  have  any  trouble  among  the  brethren.  We 
are  all  on  good  terms  now  and  we  will  overcome  any  difficulties ; 
but  I  do  believe  that  the  West  has  interests  that  are  different 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


61 


from  those  of  the  East.  I  believe  the  West  is  a  section 
that  deals  with  matters  on  different  lines  from  the  East,  and  I 
do  not  see  any  harm  in  adopting  the  plan  laid  out  by 
the  committee.  I  do  not  say  it  is  perfect  or  that  it  does  not  need 
readjustment.  However,  generally  speaking  and  agreeing  that 
we  must  have  certain  membership  to  constitute  a  jurisdiction, 
I  do  not  see  how  the  plan  could  be  very  well  improved; 
I  would  not  mind  it  if  Minnesota  and  Iowa  were  cut  off  and 
Arizona  and  New  Mexico  taken  in.  I  do  not  object  to  Minne- 
sota and  Iowa,  but  they  belong  to  the  Middle  West  and  Arizona 
and  New  Mexico  belong  to  the  West.  Now,  I  come  to  these 
meetings  at  more  sacrifice  of  time  than  any  other  man  except 
Dr.  Randall;  but  he  is  a  Methodist  preacher  and  can  get  away, 
and  I  am  a  business  man  and  can't  well  afford  to  get  away,  and 
I  do  protest  against  the  tremendous  waste  of  time  at  these  meet- 
ings. I  hope  to-morrow  we  will  get  down  to  business  and  that 
the  Chairman  will  hold  every  man  strictly  to  his  time. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  I  have  held  every  man  to 
it  except  our  good  brother  Bishop  Hoss,  and  it  was  by  general 
consent  that  he  was  not  to  come  under  the  rule. 

Bishop  Leete:  I  thought  I  would  say  a  word  with  reference 
to  the  matter  of  the  Regional  Conference,  with  reference  to  its 
place  in  this  plan  as  directed  by  the  General  Conference.  The 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  directed 
us  to  try  to  make  a  plan  of  unification  in  harmony  with  the  basic 
principle  of  the  Chattanooga  agreement.  They  afterwards  re- 
lieved us  of  even  holding  closely  to  that  by  giving  us  liberty 
to  consult  concerning  any  plan  and  to  adopt  any  plan  that  seemed 
reasonable ;  and  even  charged  us  further  to  make  any  concessions 
in  the  interest  of  harmony  that  we  might  find  it  in  our  feelings  to 
make.  So  our  charter  is  a  pretty  large  charter;  but  with  ref- 
erence to  basic  principles  I  hope  never  to  be  connected  again 
with  anything  that  has  basic  principles  or  tentative  agreements. 
I  want  to  know  what  principles  you  mean  or  what  you  intend  to 
do  with  the  tentative  business  before  I  get  any  farther  with  it. 
My  ideas  of  the  basic  principles  of  the  Chattanooga  agreement 
are  these :  For  example,  I  do  not  think  the  question  of  the  kind 
of  Conferences  is  a  principle  at  all.  That  is  a  matter  of  organi- 
zation, as  I  understand  it.  It  is  a  matter  of  expediency  and  good 
judgment.  As  I  understand  the  Chattanooga  agreement,  the 
basic  principles  of  it  are  about  these:  First,  it  is  an  agreement  to 
give  the  largest  measure  of  local  autonomy  without  the 
destruction  of  central  authority.  Second,  it  is  a  principle 
of  fair  distribution  of  authority,  power,  influence,  or  what- 
ever term  you  may  wish  to  use.  I  would  like  to  use  the 
mildest  possible  one,  because  there  were  to  be  four  divisions 
to  that,  and  the  so-called  Northern  Church  would  get  two  of  the 


62     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

divisions,  the  colored  people  one  division,  and  the  Southern 
Church  one  division.  This  is  about  the  actual  numerical  dif- 
ference, so  that  it  is  a  distribution  according  to  membership, 
and  is  fair.  The  third  principle  was  one  of  cosmopolitan  re- 
lationship in  the  Church,  racial  justice  to  all  the  children  of  men. 
The  colored  people  were  to  have  a  proper  place  in  the  work  of 
the  Church  so  far  as  the  government  was  concerned,  which 
would  not  mean  anything  different  in  connection  with  the  social 
relation,  but  would  have  to  do  with  the  discussion  of  business. 
As  I  am  able  to  analyze  them,  the  three  basic  principles  in  this 
Chattanooga  agreement  are  racial  justice,  proportionate  rep- 
resentation, and  the  principle  which  I  first  named  in  my  re- 
marks. We  have  got  away  from  those  principles  in  this 
agreement.  Every  one  of  them  we  have  destroyed.  Neither 
Church  is  satisfied  with  this  Regional  Conference  business,  and 
neither  Church  is  going  to  be  satisfied  wi/th  this  Regional 
Conference  business.  It  seems  to  me  what  the  Churches  ex- 
pected of  us  was  to  produce  a  maximum  of  unification  with 
a  minimum  amount  of  reorganization.  I  think  that  is  what 
they  wanted  of  us.  The  people  do  not  want  to  be  reorganized 
any  more  than  is  necessary.  They  want  unification  with 
very  little  reorganization,  and  my  feeling  is  that  it  would 
be  perfectly  competent,  as  I  see,  for  us,  if  such  a  proposi- 
tion were  up,  to  favor  a  plan  which  would  continue  Methodism 
substantially  as  it  is  to-day,  but  which  would  merge  into  large 
Conferences  the  small  Conferences  in  the  territories  where  there 
is  overlapping  in  Churches.  What  I  mean  to  say  is  this:  We 
could  have  no  proposition  which  would  meet  with  greater  favor 
than  if  we  were  to  propose  to  merge  our  small  Conferences  in 
large  territories.  That  would  practically  take  all  of  our  small 
Border  Conferences  and  put  them  in  the  Southern  territories. 
If  we  had  agreed  to  do  that  and  to  perpetuate  the  large  Annual 
Conferences — increase  them  by  putting  the  small  overlapping 
Conferences  into  them — and  had  been  able  to  trust  each  other 
as  to  connectionalism,  the  whole  matter  would  be  solved.  Al- 
low the  Annual  Conferences  a  measure  of  local  autonomy  which 
would  enable  them  to  discharge  all  the  functions  necessary  lo- 
cally and  at  the  same  time  avoid  the  constant  accusation  that 
we  are  trying  to  draw  lines  across  the  country.  I  feel  as  strong- 
ly opposed  to  the  suggestion  that  there  is  a  difference  between 
Iowa  and  California  as  I  feel  opposed  to  the  suggestion  that 
there  is  a  difference  between  Maine  and  Florida.  The  men 
from  Florida  and  Maine,  and  the  men  from  Iowa  and  Cali- 
fornia, will  be  got  together,  not  as  men  from  those  States, 
but  as  a  great  Christian  body.  We  should  be  opposed  to  any 
other  idea  in  both  of  these  cases.  We  ought  to  have  a  Method- 
ism that  can  look  into  the  faces  of  all  its  people  everywhere, 


St.  Louis  Meeting  !  , '  63 


which  can  allow  the  local  governments  to  take  care  of  the  local 
institutions,  and  nevertheless,  like  the  United  States  Government, 
have  a  strong  centralized  authority  which,  by  the  way,  has 
never  been  so  centralized  as  it  is  now  under  Democratic  South- 
ern administration — and  I  am  in  favor  of  it,  I  will  say.  I  wish 
we  could  get  away  from  this  maximum  of  reorganization,  which 
the  Church  will  not  stand  for  on  either  side,  and  get  back  to 
simplicity  in  organization  such  as  we  had  away  back  years  ago, 
serving  all,  and  having  a  general  superintendency  in  some  form 
and  a  General  Conference  with  some  shadow  of  reasonable 
powers,  a  Church  in  which  every  child  of  man  everywhere,  so 
far  as  the  business  side  of  it  is  concerned,  with  a  perfectly 
clear  understanding  on  all  social  questions,  can  have  his  place 
in  the  councils  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  If  I  understand  Bishop  Leete  (and  if  I  do  not  I 
would  like  to  be  enlightened),  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is  his  thought 
that  we  should  all  come  into  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
as  it  is  to-day.  Now,  there  has  not  been  a  time  since  1844  when 
organic  union  was  not  perfectly  feasible  and  perfectly  possible 
from  their  side  on  those  terms.  The  doors  of  Southern  Method- 
ism are  wide  open.  We  will  receive  you  brethren  into  our  com- 
munion gladly  and  give  you  good  government  under  our  laws 
as  they  stand  now ;  but  you  would  not  accept  that,  and  we  cannot 
accept  your  invitation  to  come  into  your  Church  that  way.  We 
have  to  have  the  Regional  Conferences. 

Bishop  McDowell:  Dr.  Moore  said  this  morning  you  did  not 
want  all  of  us  to  come  and  join  you. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  I  am  perfectly  at  liberty  to  speak  on  that,  be- 
cause there  is  no  possibility  of  it  being  realized. 

Bishop  Leete:  Before  it  is  forgotten  I  would  like  to  say  this: 
There  is  this  difference  in  the  matter,  which  Dr.  Lamar  for  the 
moment  has  forgotten,  I  am  perfectly  sure,  and  that  is  that  the 
proposition  I  am  making  would  in  the  course  of  time  place  about 
400,000  of  our  members  under  your  Conferences  without  any 
protection  of  any  kind  for  themselves,  with  $26,000,000  of  prop- 
erty. That  is  a  little  different  from  asking  everybody  to  come 
into  our  Church. 

A.  J.  Lamar :  But,  if  you  please,  the  General  Conference  is  the 
legislating  body.  An  Annual  Conference  cannot  legislate.  The 
Annual  Conference  has  no  power  to  make  any  laws  on  any  sub- 
ject. That  inheres  in  the  General  Conference,  and  the  General 
Conference  would  be  just  as  it  is  now,  so  there  is  no  use 
talking  about  that.  We  have  to  have  Regional  Conferences. 
Both  General  Conferences  have  said  so,  your  own  as  well  as  ours, 
whether  you  believe  in  it  or  not  and  whether  I  believe  in  it  or 
not.  The  General  Conferences  have  adopted  that  as  a  basic  prin- 
ciple and  we  of  the  South  are  pledged;  and  if  we  are  to  get  a 


64     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

system  which  will  stand  a  chance  of  receiving  the  approval 
of  our  people,  we  have  got  to  see  that  those  Regional  Confer- 
ences have  sufficient  power  to  give  adequate  protection  to  the 
minority.  That  was  the  design  of  it,  and  we  must  insist  upon  it. 
It  cannot  be  otherwise. 

T.  N.  Ivey:  I  move  that  we  adjourn. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Hamilton)  :  I  have  recognized  Broth- 
er Du  Bose. 

H.  M.  Du  Bose:  I  was  hoping  that  we  could  get  a  vote  on 
this  matter;  but  I  will  make  my  speech,  which  will  be  brief. 
I  am  on  record  as  being  an  Asburian  Methodist  in  the  matter 
of  reunion.  Interpreting  that  term  for  myself,  it  means  real 
union.  I  announced  that  first  through  the  press  before  we  had 
any  meeting  of  this  Commission,  and  I  announced  it  on  the  floor 
of  the  Commission  at  Baltimore.  I  have  not  changed  my  wish  or 
preference  in  that  matter.  What  I  now  long  to  see  would  be 
a  truly  reunited  Methodist  Church.  I  recognize  the  impossibility 
of  a  true  idealism  of  that  conception,  and  therefore  very  early 
fell  in  with  the  idea  of  Regional  Conferences.  What  I  have  in 
mind  now,  and  what  I  propose  to  say  in  seeking  the  floor,  is 
that  I  could  not  as  a  Southern  Methodist  ask  to  have  the  ter- 
ritory of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  remain  intact 
with  the  accretion  of  the  membership  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  within  what  is  generally  spoken  of  as  Southern  Meth- 
odist Church  territory  and  at  the  same  time  require  or  expect  a 
division  of  the  territory  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
New  England.  I  would  not  be  willing  to  vote  for  or  to  see  the 
South  remain  intact  and  the  territory  of  our  sister  Church  di- 
vided. That  constituted  the  second  horn  of  the  dilemma,  and  I 
early  conceived  the  necessity  of  the  Regional  Conferences.  I 
doubt  if  by  any  process  whatever — though  I  seconded  the  Doc- 
tor's motion  this  morning  hoping  something  might  grow  out  of 
it — I  doubt  if  at  any  time  or  as  a  result  of  any  amount  of  de- 
liberation and  discussion  we  will  fall  upon  a  plan  more  nearly 
acceptable  or  with  better  chance  of  getting  before  the  General 
Conferences  than  the  one  we  have.  We  have  worked  it  out  after 
careful  and  laborious  study  and  devotion  to  the  whole  question 
of  solving  the  difficulties ;  but  we  do  not  and  cannot  remove  them 
all,  and  it  occurs  to  me  (and  I  state  this  with  deliberation)  that 
if  we  find  ourselves  unable  to  carry  this  plan  before  our  Gen- 
eral Conference  there  is  no  plan  we  can  carry,  and  I  see  no 
possible  rearrangement  of  the  matter  on  any  better  basis  than  the 
one  we  have  it  upon. 

E.  C.  Reeves:  I  shall  detain  you  but  a  minute.  I  am  some- 
times called  a  free  lance.  I  do  not  agree  with  a  good  many  of 
my  friends  and  sometimes  I  hardly  agree  with  myself.  As  to 
this  question  of  Regional  Conferences  I  speak  freely,  because 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


65 


both  General  Conferences  have  adopted  it.  I  believe  it  is  an 
abomination,  and  I  want  to  go  on  record  and  I  want  my  chil- 
dren to  read  it  when  I  am  dead  and  gone.  I  am  opposed  to  it, 
and  if  it  ever  does  come  some  of  you  will  live  to  see  the  days 
of  trouble  that  it  will  bring  upon  us.  When  you  give  me  a  call 
to  make  a  Constitution  for  a  new  Church,  my  Church  is  gone 
and  your  Church  is  gone  and  we  have  a  new  slate.  If  I  can- 
not trust  you  in  the  future,  I  am  not  ready  for  unification.  If  you 
cannot  trust  me,  you  are  not  ready  for  unification.  I  will  trust 
you  to  settle  the  other  questions  and  to  settle  this  question  about 
the  great  African  Church;  but  if  I  trust  you  to  settle  some  things, 
you  ought  to  trust  me  about  some  things.  I  don't  know  what  new 
questions  will  come  up.  I  may  be  in  a  majority.  I  may  be  on  the 
big  side.  You  don't  know  what  question  is  coming  up.  It  is 
my  Church  and  it  is  your  Church,  and  it  is  not  the  Southern 
faction  or  the  Northern  faction ;  we  will  be  only  one  Church. 
We  must  be  one  in  spirit  or  we  had  better  not  get  together.  I 
do  not  believe  this  question  will  ever  work  well  with  our  peo- 
ple. What  do  we  want  with  these  Regional  Conferences?  To 
protect  us  down  here?  We  can't  trust  you,  if  that  is  what  we 
are  after.  I  don't  want  it.  It  makes  us  sectional.  It  has  de- 
stroyed our  general  superintendency.  It  is  at  war  with  our  idea 
of  the  episcopacy.  I  do  not  want  to  live  to  see  the  day — no,  I 
don't — I  do  not  want  to  live  to  see  the  day  when  superintendency 
is  cut  down  to  a  mere  presiding  eldership.  I  want  to  see  our 
bishops  free  to  go  everywhere  and  every  bishop  will  be  my  bish- 
op, and  not  any  little  two-by-six  fellow  in  a  Regional  Conference 
be  my  bishop  without  permission  to  go  out  anywhere.  Oh, 
brethren,  let  us  get  away  from  that  kind  of  an  episcopacy.  If 
I  cannot  have  a  full-grown  bishop,  I  don't  want  one.  I  ad- 
mire them.  I  respect  the  office.  I  revere  it.  I  was  taught  that 
way.  If  you  are  going  to  have  them  little  "me  and  my  wife, 
my  son  John  and  his  wife,  us  four,  no  more,"  I  cannot  respect 
them.  I  have  said  what  I  want  to  say,  and  I  wanted  to  put 
myself  on  record  as  against  this  whole  Regional  business. 
T.  N.  Ivey :  I  move  that  we  adjourn. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried, and  the  Commission  was  dismissed  with  a  benediction  by 
Rev.  Robert  E.  Jones. 

SECOND  DAY,  THURSDAY,  APRIL  11,  1918. 

Morning  Session. 

The  Joint  Commission  was  called  to  order  by  Bishop  Cranston 
at  9:30  a.m. 

Hymn  530,  "O  Thou,  in  whose  presence  my  soul  takes  delight," 
was  sung. 
5 


66     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


Prayer  was  offered  by  Bishop  Cranston. 
Hymn  312,  "O  Happy  Day,"  was  sung. 
Prayer  was  offered  by  Dr.  W.  N.  Ainsworth. 
Bishop  Hamilton  took  the  chair. 

The  roll  was  called  and  the  following  were  present:  Bishops 
E.  E.  Hoss,  Collins  Denny,  E.  D.  Mouzon.  W.  B.  Murrah,  Earl 
Cranston,  J.  W.  Hamilton,  W.  F.  McDowell,  F.  D.  Leete,  R. 
J.  Cooke.  Ministers :  F.  M.  Thomas,  W.  J.  Young,  J.  M.  Moore, 
C.  M.  Bishop,  E.  B.  Chappell,  T.  N.  Ivey,  A.  F.  Watkins,  H. 
M.  Du  Bose,  W.  N.  Ainsworth,  A.  J.  Lamar,  Edgar  Blake,  D. 
G.  Downey,  J.  F.  Goucher,  R.  N.  Jones,  A.  J.  Nast,  Frank  Neff, 
E.  M.  Randall,  C.  B.  Spencer,  J.  W.  Van  Cleve,  J.  T-  Wallace. 
Laymen:  M.  L.  Walton,  H.  N.  Snyder,  P.  D.  Maddin,  R.  S. 
Hyer,  J.  H.  Reynolds,  R.  E.  Blackwell,  J.  R.  Pepper,  E.  C. 
Reeves,  H.  H.  White,  E.  W.  Hines,  G.  W.  Brown,  A.  W.  Har- 
ris, C.  W.  Kinne,  I.  G.  Penn,  I.  E.  Robinson,  H.  W.  Rogers, 
Alex.  Simpson,  Jr.,  Rolla  V.  Watt,  J.  R.  Joy,  C.  A.  Pollock. 
Rev.  C.  M.  Stuart,  alternate. 

The  minutes  of  the  last  session  were  read  and  approved. 

Bishop  Denny  took  the  chair  as  presiding  officer. 

Claudius  B.  Spencer:  At  the  suggestion  of  a  number,  and 
after  conference  with  them,  I  have  prepared  this  paper,  which 
I  would  like  to  submit : 

Whereas  in  the  initial  meeting  in  the  interest  of  the  unification  of  Ameri- 
can Methodism,  held  in  December,  1910,  in  the  City  of  Baltimore,  there 
were  present  representatives  of  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church ;  and 
whereas  that  Church  was  represented  in  the  Committee  of  Nine  that 
drafted  the  original  proposed  basis  of  unification  through  reorganization  ; 
and  whereas  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church  was  represented  in  the  per- 
fected plan  submitted  and  in  principle  adopted  by  the  General  Conference 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  the  General  Conference 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church ;  and  whereas  we  have  not  observed 
the  presence  of  representatives  from  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church  in 
our  midst  in  the  sessions  of  the  Joint  Commission  since  1916;  and  whereas 
there  has  been  no  formal  statement  made  to  this  Joint  Commission  of  the 
present  status  of  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church  as  related  to  the  unifi- 
cation of  American  Methodism ;  therefore  be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  Joint  Commission  respectfully  requests  the  Chairmen 
of  the  Joint  Commission  to  present  in  writing  to  this  session  of  the  Joint 
Commission  a  statement  of  the  existing  status  of  the  Methodist  Protestant 
Church  in  relation  to  the  unification  of  American  Methodism  ;  and  we  re- 
quest the  Chairmen  of  the  Joint  Commission  to  communicate  to  the  proper 
persons  in  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church  our  feeling  of  fraternity  for 
their  Church  and  our  hope  for  organic  union  with  them. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  What  is  the  pleasure  of  the 
Commission  ? 

H.  M.  Du  Bose:  We  have  an  order  pending.  Is  not  this  new 
matter? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  It  is  new  matter,  and  can 
only  come  before  us  by  common  consent.    Before  we  take  this 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


6? 


up,  we  should  hear  from  Dr.  Todd,  who  has  the  Sunday  serv- 
ices in  charge.  Is  there  any  objection?  If  not,  we  shall  be  glad 
to  hear  from  Dr.  Todd. 

Dr.  Luther  E.  Todd :  I  come  to  ask  how  many  of  you  will  be 
here  over  Sunday  and  how  many  are  willing  to  occupy  pulpits  and 
how  many  times.  There  are  forty  or  fifty  of  our  Churches  that 
are  exceedingly  anxious  to  have  you  in  their  pulpits  on  Sunday, 
and  while  I  have  learned  indirectly  that  you  think  you  may  ad- 
journ on  Saturday  I  am  hoping  that  you  will  stay  over  the  Sab- 
bath and  give  us  the  benefit  of  your  presence  on  Sunday.  So, 
if  you  can,  I  would  be  pleased  to  find  out  to-day  in  your  own 
way  just  how  many  will  stay  and  the  hours  you  are  willing  to 
•  preach,  so  that  the  committee  which  meets  this  afternoon  will 
make  the  assignments  and  get  them  in  the  paper.  I  have  a  num- 
ber of  invitations  for  you.  One  is  to  go  to  the  top  of  the  highest 
building  we  have.  Last  evening  we  took  you  to  the  depths 
and  now  we  want  to  take  you  into  the  sky.  Then  to-morrow 
afternoon  we  want  to  take  you  for  an  automobile  ride  through 
our  parks.  I  also  have  an  invitation  for  you  to  have  lunch  in  the 
great  Barnes  Hospital,  which  is  a  very  unusual  institution.  I 
bring  these  matters  to  your  attention  and  will  be  pleased  to  have 
a  report  from  you  as  soon  as  possible,  so  that  we  shall  know 
how  to  act. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  What  will  you  do  with  this 
courteous  invitation? 

Frank  M.  Thomas :  There  is  no  way  for  me  to  know. 

Dr.  Luther  E.  Todd :  Will  it  be  possible  for  those  who  remain 
over  to  write  on  their  personal  cards  the  hours  a.m.  and  p.m. 
that  they  would  preach?  Hand  those  to  Dr.  Thomas,  and  he 
can  communicate  with  me. 

W.  N.  Ainsworth :  I  think  this  matter  had  best  be  disposed  of 
now.  I  move  that  every  minister  who  proposes  to  be  in  the  city 
on  Sunday  consider  himself  subject  to  assignment. 

The  motion  was  seconded. 

David  G.  Downey :  The  difficulty  with  that  is,  we  do  not  know 
whether  we  are  going  to  be  here  Sunday  or  not.  If  the  Com- 
mission is  still  in  session,  we  shall  be  here.  If  it  is  not,  for  my- 
self I  expect  to  leave  St.  Louis  on  the  first  train.  We  have 
voted  to  adjourn  at  five  o'clock  Saturday  afternoon,  and  I 
hope  that  will  be  adhered  to.  That  being  so,  it  seems  to  me 
that  only  those  members  of  the  Commission  who  have  determined 
to  stay  in  St.  Louis  are  available. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Dr.  Downey's  remarks  are 
more  in  the  nature  of  a  suggestion  than  a  motion. 

David  G.  Downey:  Yes. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  motion  of  Dr.  Ainsworth  was  agreed 
to. 


68     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

John  M.  Moore:  I  move  that  we  accept  the  invitation  for  the 
drive  to-morrow  afternoon  at  the  close  of  the  session,  in  order 
that  we  may  get  fresh  air  and  a  little  recreation. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  appreciate  these  courteous  invitations  that 
come  to  us  and  I  also  appreciate  the  need  of  exercise  in  the 
open  air,  but  it  seems  to  me  we  need  rather  more  vigorous  ex- 
ercise right  here  in  the  meetings  of  this  Commission  and  that 
the  affairs  that  we  are  called  together  here  to  consider  ought 
to  receive  the  first  of  our  attention  and  all  of  our  attention  for 
the  time  being,  and  I  hope  we  shall  make  no  social  engagements 
until  we  complete  our  work  here. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Is  there  anything  further 
to  be  said  on  the  motion  of  Dr.  Moore? 

John  M.  Moore :  I  hope  the  Commission  understands  my  mo- 
tion, that  we  accept  the  invitation  to  drive  at  the  close  of  the 
session  to-morrow  afternoon  at  5 :  15.  There  is  an  hour  between 
that  time  and  supper  when  we  shall  not  be  engaged,  and  we 
ought  to  have  some  fresh  air  and  exercise. 

Claudius  B.  Spencer:  It  is  very  evident  that  the  two  Commis- 
sions composing  this  Joint  Commission  will  need  to  have  some 
separate  meetings,  and  when  are  we  going  to  have  them  unless 
to-morrow  evening?  How  can  we  do  this  if  we  go  off  on  a 
drive  for  that  hour  and  then  end  up  with  the  dinner?  Of 
course,  as  it  is  said,  it  is  only  a  little  drive;  but  we  need  that 
time  and  I  don't  think  we  can  go  on  it. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  I  propose  a  substitute,  that  our  Secretaries  be 
instructed  to  reply  to  all  of  these  brethren  that,  while  we  ap- 
preciate very  highly  their  hospitable  offers,  we  find  it  impossible 
to  accept  any  social  engagements  owing  to  the  pressure  of  our 
business. 

The  substitute  was  seconded. 

Edwin  M.  Randall :  I  do  not  see  how  that  proposed  ride  to- 
morrow evening  between  the  close  of  this  sesson  and  supper 
will  interfere  with  our  business,  and  I  think  we  will  be  in  bet- 
ter shape  for  the  ride. 

A.  W.  Harris:  I  move  that  the  question  be  now  put. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

Thereupon,  a  vote  being  taken,  the  substitute  of  Dr.  Lamar 
was  carried  by  a  vote  of  22  to  8. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  We  have  now  before  us,  as 
I  understand  by  general  or  unanimous  consent,  the  paper  of- 
fered by  Dr.  Spencer. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  do  not  understand  that  unanimous  consent 
was  given.  I  would  suggest  that  consideration  of  this  matter 
be  delayed  until  we  finish  the  matter  we  are  now  upon. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Make  a  motion  then. 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


69 


Edgar  Blake:  It  is  not  necessary. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny) :  I  think  it  would  be  better, 
since*  this  matter  did  come  before  us. 

Edgar  Blake:  Then  I  move  that  the  consideraton  of  Dr. 
Spencer's  paper  be  delayed  until  we  complete  the  consideration 
of  the  item  we  are  now  on. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  question  before  you  is 
the  question  under  consideration  yesterday. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  It  seems  to  me  that  all  that  can  be  properly 
said  on  the  question  has  been  said,  and  I  move  the  previous 
question. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  There  are  one  or  two  things, 
it  seems  to  me,  that  need  to  be  cleared  up  so  that  we  can  vote 
intelligently.  The  first  question  is  on  the  motion  made  by  Dr. 
Penn,  which  was  a  paper  directing  the  Committee  on  Confer- 
ences to  consider  certain  proposed  lines. 

John  M.  Moore:  Some  of  our  brethren  have  just  come  in 
and  I  would  be  glad  if  you  would  state  the  full  motion. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  motion  that  was  made 
by  Dr.  Blake  is  the  list  of  the  proposed  Regional  Conferences 
No.  6  as  appearing  on  page  2  from  the  top  of  the  page  down 
to  "members"  of  this  printed  pamphlet,  which  is  without  spe- 
cial heading,  but  which  we  understand  to  be  the  report  of  the 
Committee  on  Conferences.  While  that  was  under  considera- 
tion Dr.  Penn  offered  a  substitute. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  Dr.  Goucher's  came  first. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Thank  you.  Dr.  Goucher's 
was  that  in  Section  1  we  should  insert  the  words  which  sub- 
stantially stated  that  there  should  be  eight  Regional  Jurisdic- 
tions. He  wanted  to  substitute  the  words  "there  shall  be  eight 
Regional  Jurisdictions."  As  a  substitute  for  that  Dr.  Penn  pro- 
posed that  there  should  be  four  Regional  Jurisdictions  divided 
by  lines  running  north  and  south  among  the  white  member- 
ship— three  of  those — and  one  membership  of  the  Colored  Meth- 
odists in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  that  his  paper 
should  be  committed  for  perfection  to  the  Committee  on  Con- 
ferences.  Have  I  stated  that  accurately,  Dr.  Penn? 

I.  Garland  Penn:  Yes. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  motion,  therefore,  is 
on  the  substitute. 

Claudius  B.  Spencer:  I  rise  to  a  question  of  parliamentary 
inquiry.  In  order  to  get  that  plan  of  mine  I  had  to  step  to  the 
hotel,  and  I  didn't  hear  the  motion  made  by  Dr.  Goucher.  I 


70     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

thought  the  general  question  was  pending,  and  not  the  specific 
motion.  For  that  reason  I  did  not  make  a  motion  that  the  plan 
I  submitted  be  adopted,  and  I  rise  to  make  a  parliamentary  in- 
quiry as  to  whether  it  would  be  legitimate  to  do  so  now,  to 
move  that  as  a  substitute  for  everything  before  the  house. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  My  understanding  was  that 
you  presented  it  as  a  suggestion,  and  not  as  a  motion. 

Claudius  B.  Spencer:  That  is  so  and  I  have  explained  the  rea- 
son. I  was  absent  from  the  building  or  I  should  have  made  the 
motion. 

M.  L.  Walton :  I  move  that  we  consider  the  proposition  as  hav- 
ing been  offered. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  I  am  sorry,  but  we  are  under 
the  previous  question. 

M.  L.  Walton :  I  ask  unanimous  consent. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Unanimous  consent  is  asked, 
and  it  will  take  unanimous  consent  for  a  vote  on  Dr.  Spencer's 
motion.  Is  there  objection?  The  Chair  hears  none.  Shall  I 
take  Dr.  Spencer's  motion  first?  Of  course,  it  would  be  out  of 
order  without  general  consent. 

W.  N.  Ainsworth:  A  further  inquiry:  Did  not  Bishop  Mc- 
Dowell make  a  definite  motion? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny):  No,  sir;  he  only  undertook 
to  illustrate. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  was  only  illustrating  the  effect  of  Dr. 
Goucher's  motion. 

Bishop  Leete :  An  inquiry :  We  are  now  in  a  rather  important 
moment  in  our  proceedings,  and  I  just  want  to  raise  the  point, 
do  not  we  vote  by  Commissions? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  It  would  require  a  majority 
vote  of  each  Commission  to  pass  any  of  these  resolutions  as 
the  Chair  understands  the  rule  adopted  in  Baltimore. 

Bishop  Leete :  I  feel  that  we  ought  to  have  meetings  of  our 
separate  Commissions  before  we  take  the  vote  on  this  matter. 
It  is  an  important  matter. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  It  is  within  the  province  of 
either  Commission  to  call  a  meeting  of  that  Commission.  Is 
that  meeting  called? 

Bishop  Leete :  I  have  no  authority  to  call  it. 

John  F.  Goucher :  Are  we  not  working  under  tentative  pro- 
ceedings ? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  We  are  working  under  unani- 
mous permission  to  vote  on  Dr.  Spencer's  substitute. 

John  F.  Goucher :  Are  we  not  voting  tentatively  on  this  as 
heretofore? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  I  so  understand  it. 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


7i 


Bishop  Leete:  If  that  is  the  case,  the  matter  of  the  majority 
of  each  Commission  is  not  important. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  I  have  not  the  Baltimore 
proceedings  before  me,  but  my  recollection  is  that  the  rules 
adopted  at  Baltimore  were  that  no  action  of  the  Joint  Com- 
mission should  be  deemed  valid  unless  passed  by  a  majority  of 
each  Commission. 

Bishop  Leete:  That  does  not  cover  the  point,  because  a  vote 
might  be  taken  and  a  matter  might  be  carried  in  this  Joint  Com- 
mission and  then  afterwards  by  a  count  it  might  be  determined 
the  other  way.  We  ought  to  know  whether  we  are  voting  on 
a  proposition  tentatively  or  whether  we  are  voting  really  as  a 
final  action. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Allow  the  Chair  to  make 
the  decision,  and  if  it  does  not  commend  itself  to  the  Commission 
the  Commission  can  reverse  it.  Let  me  decide  therefore  that  a 
call  by  Commissions  can  be  made,  under  the  rule,  even  on  a 
tentative  vote.   Is  that  decision  of  the  Chair  appealed  from? 

Several  Voices :  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Then  that  stands  as  the 
order  of  the  Commission. 

David  G.  Downey:  Will  the  Chair  also  rule  that  this  vote  we 
are  now  taking  on  this  particular  matter,  this  part  of  this  paper — 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  No,  we  are  on  Dr.  Spencer's 
suggestion.   That  is  before  us  by  unanimous  consent. 

David  G.  Downey:  But  practically  an  amendment  to  this  and 
the  vote  on  it  ought  to  be  on  the  same  basis  as  a  vote  on  the 
other. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Certainly. 

David  G.  Downey:  Will  the  Chair  also  rule  that  this  is  the 
same  sort  of  a  vote,  tentatively,  by  which  we  have  adopted  the 
other  matters  ? 

The  Chairman  (Bisdiop  Denny):  Certainly*  but  if  either 
Commission  desires  to  have  a  separate  vote  on  this,  it  is  within 
its  rights  to  call  for  such  a  separate  vote. 

Bishop  Leete:  Let  me  raise  this  point,  although  it  may  be  of 
no  value.  We  are  voting  on  a  matter  of  great  importance,  with 
the  presence  of  six  or  eight  men  who  did  not  hear  the  discus- 
sion of  yesterday;  and  we  are  handling  provisions  which  are 
going  to  be  largely  discussed  throughout  the  Church  if  they  are 
adopted.  We  are  under  the  embarrassment  that  some  of  our 
editors  are  Commissioners  and  some  things  have  been  published 
as  having  been  adopted  that  were  really  only  tentatively  agreed 
on.  It  is  a  question  whether  it  is  wise  to  go  ahead  and  vote  on 
these  matters  without  a  further  chance  to  these  men  who  have 
not  heard  the  discussion  to  become  posted  on  it.    I  think  this 


72     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

action  is  rather  hasty  and  I  think  it  is  unfortunate  that  debate 
was  shut  off  from  these  gentlemen. 

Alexander  Simpson,  Jr. :  And  all  those  who  get  here  to-morrow 
will  be  in  the  same  shape  that  these  eight  are.  I  make  the  point 
of  order  that  debate  is  not  now  in  order. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  point  of  order  would  be 
well  taken  if  it  were  on  this  paper  which  has  been  discussed, 
but  it  was  on  the  question  of  a  suggestion  by  Dr.  Spencer. 

Alexander  Simpson,  Jr. :  That  was  not  what  Bishop  Leete 
was  doing. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  I  certainly  can  be  within 
the  parliamentary  rule  to  meet  also  Mr.  Simpson's  point  of 
order  when  I  say  that  Bishop  Leete  is  not  on  the  floor  now. 

Bishop  Cranston :  A  matter  of  privilege :  There  are  some  of 
us  here  who  do  not  know  what  has  been  going  on,  as  has  been 
already  suggested.  I  confess  I  would  not  know  how  to  vote  if 
this  matter  were  pressed  to  a  vote  right  now.  I  do  not  know 
whether  I  should  vote  for  four,  eight,  or  six.  I  stand  commit- 
ted to  the  Chattanooga  business  from  the  beginning,  but  if  it 
were  possible  to  have  a  more  definite  statement  of  the  matter 
I  would  like  to  have  it. 

Bishop  Denny  suggested  that  perhaps  it  would  clear  the  mat- 
ter up  more  speedily  and  avoid  further  complications  to  have  a 
call  for  separate  Commissions  and  go  over  it  in  that  manner  and 
acquaint  ourselves  with  the  situation. 

W.  N.  Ainsworth :  I  earnestly  hope  that  we  shall  adhere  strict- 
ly to  the  order  for  the  previous  question. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny):  We  are  acting  under  that; 
but  here  is  a  question  of  high  privilege  under  the  rule  which 
would  take  precedence  of  that,  that  either  Commission  has  a 
right  to  call  for  a  separate  meeting  of  the  Commissions. 

W.  N.  Ainsworth :  Which  I  hope  we  shall  not  have,  but  that 
we  shall  proceed  to  vote. 

C.  M.  Bishop :  Would  it  not  be  necessary,  in  order  to  get  the 
matter  clearly  before  us,  for  the  Joint  Commission  to  de- 
termine at  length  what  it  is  that  is  to  be  submitted  to  the  two 
Commissions?  Are  we  not  in  process  of  perfecting  a  measure 
or  motion  upon  which  we  will  vote,  which  will  lay  before  the 
separate  Commissions  the  right  then  to  act?  But  if  we  retire 
into  separate  Commissions  and  vote  on  these  subsidiary  motions 
and  then  come  together  and  make  another  effort  and  a  second 
motion,  we  shall  spend  the  whole  day  at  it,  so  I  suggest  that  we 
proceed  to  talk  it  over  until  we  perfect  what  we  are  on. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  only  question  other  than 
a  vote  is  the  question,  " Shall  there  be  meetings  of  the  separate 
Commissions?" 

George  W.  Brown:  I  am  heartily  in  favor  of  the  expressions 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


73 


of  Dr.  Bishop.  I  think  we  should  go  forward  and  vote  on  the 
previous  question,  and  then  we  can  have  meetings  of  the  sepa- 
rate Commissions.  We  are  going  to  fritter  away  all  our  time 
on  this  matter.  We  have  only  a  few  hours  left  in  St.  Louis  in 
which  to  do  the  work,  and  I  am  conscientious  in  saying  that  I 
think  we  ought  to  do  something. 

H.  M.  Du  Bose:  A  point  of  order.  The  Chairman  has  al- 
ready made  a  statement  which  may  or  may  not  have  covered 
all  the  points ;  but  if  the  Chair  will  make  a  statement  now  on 
the  several  motions  it  will  enlighten  the  brethren  who  have 
not  been  here — 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  You  call  for  a  statement  of 
the  question? 

H.  M.  Du  Bose :  Yes. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  question  is,  as  the  Chair 
understands  it,  that  by  unanimous  consent  we  are  to  vote  first 
on  the  suggestion  of  Dr.  Spencer,  offered  yesterday  in  connection 
with  the  map  which  he  proposed,  in  which  there  should  be  nine 
Regional  Conferences.  Dr.  Goucher  had  offered  a  resolution 
that  the  last  line  on  page  I  of  this  report  should  have  the  words 
"the  following"  stricken  out  and  the  word  "each"  inserted, 
making  it  read:  "There  shall  be  eight  Regional  Jurisdictions, 
each  having  its  own  Regional  Conference."  Dr.  Penn  offered  as  a 
substitute  that  there  should  be  four  Regional  Conferences,  the 
outlines  of  which  should  be  determined  by  the  Committee  on 
Conferences,  though  he  made  a  suggestion  as  to  a  possible  out- 
line. The  order  of  the  question  will  be  Dr.  Spencer's  sugges- 
tion, Dr.  Penn's  substitute,  and  Dr.  Goucher's  motion. 

Edgar  Blake:  Would  it  not  be  well  to  state,  for  the  benefit 
of  those  who  came  in  for  the  first  time  this  morning,  that  we 
have  before  us  a  recommendation  of  the  Committee  on  Confer- 
ences that  there  be  six,  with  the  areas  and  boundaries  named, 
and  that  the  motion  for  eight  was  made  by  Dr.  Goucher  ? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Dr.  Goucher's  motion  was 
offered  as  an  amendment. 

Edgar  Blake:  And  it  was  an  amendment  to  the  proposal 
which  came  from  the  Committee  on  Conferences. 

Henry  W.  Rogers:  It  is  necessary  for  us  who  were  not  here 
yesterday  to  know  just  what  this  proposition  of  Dr.  Goucher's 
involves.  What  additional  Conferences  do  you  propose  to  add 
if  you  increase  to  eight? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  That  was  left  undetermined. 

E.  B.  Chappell:  Could  we  not  by  common  consent  give  the 
movers  of  these  three  resolutions  three  minutes  each  to  explain 
them? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Anything  can  be  done  by 
unanimous  consent. 


74     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

E.  B.  Chappell :  We  can  do  that,  and  then  these  brethren 
who  were  rtot  here  yesterday  will  know  what  they  are  voting 
on. 

Bishop  Cranston :  I  rise  to  withdraw  any  objection  to  a  vote. 
I  had  the  thought  that  we  are  voting  on  this  proposition  for  a 
second  time,  or  finally.  But  I  understand  this  proposition  of 
six  Regional  Conferences  has  never  been  tentatively  adopted. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  I  object  to  talking  on  the  proposition  with- 
out its  being  read.  A  lot  of  people  don't  know  what  Dr.  Spen- 
cer's amendment  is.  I  think  a  statement  of  three  minutes  from 
each  is  in  order,  and  unless  we  have  that  we  will  not  know  what 
we  are  doing.  I  hope  the  motion  will  be  stated  by  the  pro- 
ponents or  by  the  Secretary,  so  that  we  will  know  the  purpose 
of  these  amendments,  especially  Dr.  Spencer's. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  Chair  is  trying  to  car- 
ry out  the  will  of  the  Commission.  Is  there  any  objection  to 
three  minutes  being  given  to  Dr.  Spencer,  Dr.  Goucher,  and 
Dr.  Penn? 

E.  B.  Chappell :  And  to  Dr.  Blake— 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Is  there  any  objection?  The 
Chair  hears  none,  and  Dr.  Spencer  has  three  minutes  to  make 
a  statement  of  his  suggestion. 

Claudius  B.  Spencer:  The  plan  that  is  outlined  in  this  map 
takes  into  account  the  personality,  the  psychological  and  the 
social  life  of  all  of  the  areas  in  which  this  country  is  divided. 
There  will  be  three  Regional  Conferences  for  the  South,  three 
for  the  North,  and  it  also  takes  into  account  the  problem  of 
the  border.  It  is  according  to  the  uniform  principle  of  three  in 
the  North,  three  in  the  South,  and  three  border  Conferences. 
I  was  thinking  when  I  studied  this  map  that  an  analysis  of  the 
border  Conferences  would  show  that  our  own  denomination 
possibility  was  in  the  ascendancy ;  but  I  was  glad  when  I  found 
that  I  was  wrong  in  that,  because  it  relieves  any  chance  of  criti- 
cism or  subterranean  motive  to  find  that  two  of  the  Border  Re- 
gional Conferences,  marked  A  and  B,  are  in  the  power  of  the 
Church,  South,  so  that  of  the  nine  Regional  Conferences  it  gives 
them  power  over  five.  This  does  away  with  any  feeling  that 
there  is  any  attempt  to  overreach  them  in  any  particular.  Look- 
ing at  this  western  C,  it  does  break  up  that  area  as  it  is  in  the 
original  definition ;  and  in  each  of  these  sections  in  the  West 
there  is  a  Conference  of  the  Church,  South,  and  a  Conference 
of  our  Church,  so  that  each  one  will  have  a  border  Conference. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  We  are  now  to  hear  from  Dr. 
Penn. 

I.  G.  Penn :  My  proposition  is  really  genuine  unification.  In 
this  report  and  the  amendments  offered  we  have  gotten  very 
far  from  the  Chattanooga  basic  principles  upon  which  the 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


75 


two  Churches  have  been  endeavoring  to  unite.  Under  my 
proposition  you  will  understand  there  will  be  but  four  Regional 
Jurisdictions,  and  I  submit  the  following  as  a  substitute:  That 
the  composition  and  boundaries  and  jurisdictions  of  the  Re- 
gional Conferences  be  recommitted  to  the  Committee  on  Con- 
ferences with  instructions  to  consider  the  following:  There  shall 
be  four  Regional  Conferences — three  white  Conferences,  the 
lines  dividing  which  shall  run  north  and  south,  and  the  fourth 
shall  be  made  up  of  the  colored  membership  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  and  such  other  Colored  Methodists  as  may 
elect  to  come  in.  This  would  give  us  an  Eastern  Regional 
Conference,  a  Central  Regional  Conference,  a  Western  Regional 
Conference,  and  a  Colored  Regional  Conference. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  We  will  now  hear  from  Dr. 
Goucher. 

John  F.  Goucher:  I  propose,  instead  of  dividing  the  area 
into  six,  that  it  shall  be  divided  into  eight.  I  do  that  with  the 
idea  that  there  should  be  not  less  than  six  hundred  thousand 
members  in  any  one  Regional  Conference.  That  will  enable 
us  to  have  very  much  greater  homogeneity  of  environments 
of  each  Conference  than  if  we  have  simply  six.  I  had  at- 
tempted to  work  out  a  plan  for  six  and  for  eight,  and  in  work- 
ing those  plans  out  I  found  this  plan  of  eight  would  give  less 
infringement  on  State  lines  and  greater  homogeneity,  and  it 
would  bring  to  a  larger  representation  of  the  local  interests 
and  at  the  same  time  not  in  the  least  interfere  with  the  general 
administration.  It  is  only  a  matter  of  judgment;  and  having 
worked  this  out  with  satisfaction  to  myself,  I  thought  I  would 
feel  better  if  I  gave  the  benefit  of  my  suggestion  to  the  Commis- 
sion. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  We  will  now  hear  from  Dr. 
Blake. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  am  not  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee. 

Bishop  McDowell:  My  personal  preference  is  for  a  different 
number  than  six,  and  I  want  the  committee  to  have  its  repre- 
sentation by  one  who  is  in  favor  of  the  report  of  the  commit- 
tee in  that  regard,  so  I  ask  Dr.  Blake  to  represent  the  commit- 
tee. 

Edgar  Blake:  The  proposition  that  is  before  us  for  six  Re- 
gional Conferences,  as  you  find  them  outlined  on  page  2,  is  a 
proposition  that  comes  before  us  now  for  the  second  time  from 
the  Committee  on  Conferences.  It  has  certainly  been  very  care- 
fully considered  by  that  committee.  That  committee  has  gone 
into  all  the  questions  that  have  been  raised  here  with  great 
thoroughness,  and  after  several  meetings  and  weeks  of  pains- 
taking investigations  they  make  this  recommendation  for  six 
as  being  the  best  according  to  their  judgment.    With  reference 


j6     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

to  the  other  proposals  before  us,  I  was  to  call  your  attention 
to  one  or  two  items — 

David  G.  Downey:  A  point  of  order? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  What  is  the  point  of  order? 
David  G.  Downey:  Is  Dr.  Blake  going  to  discuss  the  other 
proposition? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  I  do  not  know. 

David  G.  Downey:  He  said  "with  reference  to  the  other  pro- 
posals he  wanted  to  call  attention  to  one  or  two  items,"  and 
I  make  the  point  of  order — 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  You  cannot  anticipate  a 
breach  of  order. 

David  G.  Downey:  The  statement  just  made  has  in  it  the 
potentialities  of  a  breach  of  order. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Dr.  Downey's  point  of 
order  is  not  well  taken.   We  have  to  deal  with  actualities. 

Edgar  Blake :  According  to  the  rules  of  our  own  General 
Conference  and  its  practice,  whenever  motions  are  offered  as  a 
substitute  for  a  recommendation  that  is  before  us  from  one  of 
our  committees,  the  representative  of  that  committee  has  a 
right  to  speak  upon  all  phases  of  the  question  involved.  I  do 
not  care  to  do  that  if  the  brethren  don't  want  the  information ; 
but  it  has  been  stated  that  there  are  brethren  here  who  did 
not  hear  the  discussion  yesterday  and  they  ought  to  know  the 
bearing  of  these  propositions  upon  the  matter  before  us.  If 
you  don't  want  the  gentlemen  to  have  the  information,  I  don't 
want  to  proffer  it. 

David  G.  Downey :  We  are  not  under  the  General  Conference 
rules,  but  under  a  point  of  special  privilege,  and  Dr.  Blake's 
only  privilege  is  to  explain  the  division  of  six. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  Chair  will  rule  that 
Dr.  Blake  up  to  the  present  time  has  been  in  order. 

Edgar  Blake :  Let  me  correct  my  friend  Dr.  Downey :  This  is 
not  a  privilege  for  me. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Dr.  Blake,  you  have  but 
three  minutes. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  understand  and  you  can  take  this  out  of  my 
time.  Dr.  Downey  can  prevent  the  brethren  from  getting  in- 
formation if  he  desires — 

David  G.  Downey:  I  object  to  that  statement. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Dr.  Blake  has  the  floor. 

Edgar  Blake:  That  is  about  all  you  have  done  up  to  the 
present  time. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  You  are  out  of  order,  Dr. 
Blake. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  am,  and  I  withdraw  the  remark. 

Bishop  McDowell :  There  is  evidently  confusion  as  to  the 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


77 


character  of  the  statement  that  was  to  be  made.  I  don't  un- 
derstand that,  as  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Conferences, 
I  can  now,  under  the  previous  question,  debate  the  subject.  I 
understood  that  the  permission  that  was  granted  was  to  explain 
the  three  different  propositions,  and  Dr.  Blake  was  to  explain 
the  report. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Dr.  Blake  had  consumed 
two  and  a  half  minutes — 

Bishop  McDowell:  But  Dr.  Blake  was  asked  to  explain  that 
report  of  the  committee  under  the  same  consent  that  was  given 
to  Dr.  Spencer,  Dr.  Penn,  and  Dr.  Goucher,  and  I  hardly  think 
that  Dr.  Blake  should  be  charged  with  the  time  consumed  by 
these  interruptions.  I  think  Dr.  Blake  ought  to  have  his  full 
three  minutes  to  explain  the  report  of  the  committee. 

Abram  W.  Harris :  I  rise  to  ask  for  the  same  thing. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny):  Is  there  any  objection? 
Without  objection,  Dr.  Blake  can  proceed. 

Rev.  Edgar  Blake:  I  have  nothing  further  to  say  except  to 
repeat  that  this  recommendation  comes  before  you  from  the 
Committee  on  Conferences  after  the  most  painstaking  investi- 
gation of  the  subject,  and  it  is  the  best  that  can  be  done  as  the 
Committee  on  Conferences  sees  the  matter. 

Joseph  W.  Van  Cleve:  A  parliamentary  inquiry. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  State  it. 

Joseph  W.  Van  Cleve:  I  wish  to  ask,  Does  this  amendment 
involve  a  recommitment  to  the  committee? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Only  one  motion  was  made 
to  recommit,  and  that  was  by  Dr.  Penn. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  I  certainly  want  to  say — 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Unless  you  have  a  question 
of  order  you  are  not  in  order. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  I  want  to  say  that  the  latter  kills  it  and  this 
makes  it  alive. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny) :  You  are  out  of  order.  Let 
us  confine  ourselves  to  order.  If  you  put  a  man  in  the  chair — 
and  this  occupant  has  no  special  desire  to  continue  in  it — it 
is  expected  from  every  member  on  the  floor  that  he  will  follow 
the  Chair  so  long  as  the  Chair  keeps  within  the  limits  of  parlia- 
mentary usage ;  and  when  the  Chair  announces  that  a  member 
is  out  of  order,  it  is  the  place  of  that  member  to  be  quiet  unless 
he  appeals  and  sustains  his  appeal.  If  you  will  adopt  the  mo- 
tion of  Dr.  Spencer,  lift  your  hands  and  hold  them  up  until 
they  have  been  counted  by  the  Secretary.  There  are  ten  for 
and  thirty  against,  and  the  motion  is  lost.  Now  if  you  will 
adopt  the  motion  of  Dr.  Penn,  hold  up  your  hands — and  against 
will  hold  up  their  hands — and  the  motion  is  lost  by  10  to  25. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  In  connection  with  this  it 


78     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


is  necessary,  that  some  of  us  may  understand  what  we  are 
doing,  to  know  whether  these  proposed  eight  Regional  Con- 
ferences include  both  the  colored  and  white  work. 

John  F.  Goucher :  I  made  the  statement  that  it  was  distributed 
over  the  same  area  and  the  same  work  as  the  six. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Then  it  goes  back  to  the 
six :  Does  the  distribution  in  the  six  include  both  colored  and 
white  work? 

Edgar  Blake:  Xo. 

John  F.  Goucher:  I  can  answer  that  it  does  not. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  And  it  does  not  in  Dr. 
Blake's  committee  report.  Now  we  will  take  the  vote  on  Dr. 
Goucher's  amendment  for  eight  Regional  Conferences. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  amendment  offered  by  Dr.  Goucher 
was  lost  by  16  to  26. 

Bishop  Mouzon:  I  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  on  the  taking 
of  the  next  vote. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Those  who  will  order  the 
yeas  and  nays  to  be  taken  will  please  hold  up  their  hands.  A 
requisite  number  is  shown,  and  the  roll  will  be  called. 

The  roll  call  resulted  as  follows:  Ayes — Mouzon,  Thomas, 
Young,  Moore,  ;  Bishop,  Chappell,  Ivey,  Watkins,  Du  Bose, 
Ainsworth,  Lamar,  Walton,  Snyder,  Maddin,  Hyer,  Reynolds, 
Blackwell,  Pepper,  White,  Hines,  Cranston,  Blake,  Goucher, 
Van  Cleve,  Wallace,  Brown,  Harris,  Rogers,  Simpson,  Watt, 
Pollock.  31.  Noes — Denny,  Murrah,  Reeves,  Hamilton,  Mc- 
Dowell, Leete,  Cooke,  Downey,  Jones,  Nast,  Neff,  Randall,  Spen- 
cer, Kinne,  Penn,  Joy.  16. 

Judge  Robinson  wras  excused  from  voting  because  he  was  not 
informed  on  the  question. 

A  recapitulation  was  called  for  and  was  had,  but  the  result 
stood  as  above. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  There  were  several  of  us 
to  whom  proxies  were  given  at  Savannah,  but  so  far  as  I  was 
personally  concerned,  having  more  proxies  than  any  one  else,  I  did 
not  feel  authorized  to  announce  any  proxy.  I  understood  that 
was  confined  to  Savannah,  and  I  therefore  announce  that  the 
motion  is  carried. 

Bishop  Cranston :  The  effect  of  this  vote  is  to  place  the  six 
Regional  Conferences  among  the  articles  tentatively  agreed 
upon. 

Bishop  Denny:  That  is  the  order  of  the  Commission. 

Bishop  Cranston:  It  simply  places  the  six  Regional  Confer- 
ences among  the  articles  tentatively  agreed  upon. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  That  is  the  order  of  the 
Commission. 

Henry  W.  Rogers :  Is  there  anything  before  us  ? 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


79 


The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  This  report  of  the  Committee 
on  Conferences. 

Henry  W.  Rogers :  That  is  not  concluded. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  No,  it  is  not. 

Edgar  Blake:  The  next  item  is  Subsection  4,  at  the  top  of 
page  3. 

E.  C.  Reeves :  Why  not  vote  in  separate  order  and  settle  the 
question  once  and  for  all? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  We  are  now  proceeding  with 
Subsection  4,  on  the  top  of  page  3  of  this  report,  which  reads 
as  follows : 

Each  Regional  Conference  may,  in  the  exercise  of  the  powers  provided 
herein,  make  rules  or  regulations  not  contrary  to  or  in  conflict  with  any 
rule  or  regulation  made  by  the  ^General  Conference  for  the  government  and 
control  of  the  connectional  affairs  of  the  Church. 

E.  C.  Reeves :  I  would  like  to  have  a  finality  on  something. 

Edgar  Blake:  The  section  now  before  us  has  already  been 
tentatively  approved,  but  when  we  examined  the  minutes  of  the 
meeting  we  found  that  they  showed  it  was  adopted  in  two  forms 
One  read  as  follows : 

No  Regional  Conference  shall  make  any  rule  or  regulation  contrary  to 
or  in  conflict  with  any  rule  or  regulation  made  by  the  General  Conference 
for  the  government  and  control  of  the  connectional  affairs  of  the  Church. 

That  was  one  form;  and  the  other  form  was,  as  I  now  recall, 
exactly  as  it  is  here.    The  committee  recommends  the  present 
form,  and  I  move  its  tentative  acceptance. 
The  motion  was  seconded. 

Bishop  Cranston  here  took  the  chair  as  presiding  officer  and 
recognized  Bishop  Denny. 

Bishop  Denny:  I  move  as  an  amendment  that  after  the  word 
"any"  in  the  second  line  and  before  the  word  "rule"  the  word 
"constitutional"  be  inserted,  so  that  the  section  will  read: 

Each  Regional  Conference  may,  in  the  exercise  of  the  powers  provided 
herein,  make  rules  or  regulations  not  contrary  to  or  in  conflict  with  any 
constitutional  rule  or  regulation  made  by  the  General  Conference  for  the 
government  and  control  of  the  connectional  affairs  of  the  Church. 

Otherwise,  as  I  see  it,  the  rights  of  the  Regional  Conferences 
are  wholly  in  the  hands  of  a  majority  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence, which  has  not  been  my  understanding  of  the  purpose  of  the 
Commission.  If  we  insert  the  word  "constitutional,"  that 
will  confine  the  General  Conference,  so  far  as  the  Constitution 
is  concerned,  to  constitutional  questions  and  will  not  give  to 
any  majority  of  the  General  Conference  at  any  time  the  right 
to  sweep  away  anything  in  connection  with  the  Regional  Con- 
ferences.   It  seems  to  me  to  be  a  matter  of  protection. 

John  F.  Goucher:  I  second  this  amendment. 

Bishop  Cooke :  I  am  opposed  to  that  for  two  reasons :  First, 


80     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

it  prevents  the  General  Conference  from  passing  any  statutory 
enactment ;  second,  it  confers  all  statutory  powers  upon  the  Re- 
gional Conferences.  Therefore,  outside  of  a  few  constitutional 
limitations,  the  Regional  Conferences  are  clothed  with  almost 
absolute  power. 

Edgar  Blake:  Is  the  suggestion  offered  by  Bishop  Denny  to 
prevent,  or  is  it  intended  to  prevent,  the  General  Conference 
from  exercising  the  powers  granted  to  it  under  the  Constitution? 

Bishop  Denny:  No,  it  does  not  mean  anything  of  the  kind. 
It  is  only  intended  to  prevent  the  General  Conference  from 
taking  away  the  power  of  the  Regional  Conferences  by  a  simple 
majority  vote. 

Edgar  Blake :  If  the  design  is  simply  to  hold  the  General 
Conference  to  the  exercise  of  its  powers  under  the  Constitution, 
this  amendment  is  not  necessary,  for  the  simple  reason  that  we 
state  here,  "Each  Regional  Conference  may,  in  the  exercise  of 
the  powers  provided  herein,  make  rules  and  regulations" — but 
then  we  go  on  and  say  "not  contrary  to  or  in  conflict  with  any 
rule  or  regulation  made  by  the  General  Conference  for  the 
government  and  control  of  the  connectional  affairs  of  the 
Church."  In  other  words,  if  the  General  Conference  passes 
any  rule  in  violation  of  the  powers  granted  by  the  Constitution, 
the  Judicial  Council  would  stop  it,  so  I  don't  see  that  this  is 
necessary. 

Henry  W.  Rogers :  I  agree  fully  with  Dr.  Blake.  I  do  not 
see  the  necessity  for  this  amendment,  and  I  think  we  are  need- 
lessly spending  time.  If  the  General  Conference  undertakes  to 
do  what  the  Constitution  prohibits,  its  action  is  null  and  void 
and  of  no  effect,  and  there  is  nothing  added  by  the  proposed 
amendment. 

Bishop  Denny :  Will  the  Commission  allow  me  to  say  another 
word?    The  purpose  of  this  is  simply  this — 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  I  rise  to  a  point  of  order.  The  Bishop  was 
very  careful  about  that  while  in  the  Chair.  The  rule  was 
adopted  yesterday  that  we  should  speak  only  once  on  a  subject. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  The  Secretary  will  read 
that  rule. 

Bishop  Hamilton :  I  hope  by  unanimous  consent  Bishop  Den- 
ny will  be  allowed  to  speak. 

Bishop  Denny:  I  only  want  to  be  within  the  order. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  I  gladly  agree  to  the  unanimous  consent  for 
Bishop  Denny  to  speak.  I  was  simply  calling  attention  to  the 
rule. 

Bishop  Denny :  This  is  simply  a  protection.  Xo  harm  can 
possibly  be  done  by  the  insertion  of  a  word.  I  think  some  pro- 
tection is  given  by  inserting  it.  It  seems  to  me  it  will  be  a  pro- 
tection.   We  know  very  well  that  every  legislative  body  has  a 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


Hi 


tendency  to  encroach  upon  its  powers  and  to  pass  over  the  lines 
strictly  laid  down  for  it.  To  state  that  we  have  a  Judicial  Council 
that  will  meet  this  situation  is  simply  to  state  that  there  may  be 
a  necessity  for  it.  In  answer  to  Bishop  Cooke's  statement  that 
this  would  prevent  any  statutory  enactment,  let  me  say  my  pur- 
pose is  simply  this,  to  see  that  whatever  powers  are  conferred 
on  the  Regional  Conferences  shall  be  protected  in  the  Regional 
Conferences.  The  Regional  Conferences  cannot  encroach  on 
the  General  Conference,  and  my  amendment  makes  it  impossible 
for  the  General  Conference  to  encroach  on  the  constitutional 
powers  of  the  Regional  Conferences ;  and  I  repeat,  if  there  be 
no  necessity  for  it  according  to  the  statement  of  Judge  Rogers, 
nothing  is  lost  by  the  insertion  of  it.  But  I  claim  that  there  is 
a  protection  in  it,  because  we  have  had  evidences  again  and 
again  of  the  General  Conference  encroaching  on  the  Constitu- 
tion. Whatever  may  be  the  case  in  your  Church,  we  have  al- 
ready discovered  it  in  ours,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  we  have  a 
method  by  which  we  ought  to  be  able  to  check  that.  But  even 
the  best  men  are  sometimes  guilty  of  oversight.  Now,  we  have 
left  very  few  powers  to  the  Regional  Conferences.  Those  pow- 
ers relate  to  matters  that  lie  very  close  to  the  hearts  of  the  people 
living  in  the  various  regions.  They  want  to  see  that  these 
powers  are  completely  protected.  They  want  to  know  that  they 
are  not  going  to  be  encroached  upon  at  any  time  by  a  bare  ma- 
jority of  the  General  Conference  that  cannot  for  a  moment  un- 
derstand how  close  those  powers  are,  and  the  insertion  of  this 
word  will  give  to  the  proposed  Judicial  Council  the  right  con- 
stantly to  pass  on  the  question  whether  any  action  by  a  simple 
majority  of  the  General  Conference  is  an  encroachment  on  the 
constitutional  privileges  of  the  Regional  Conferences.  If  we 
are  to  pass  this  thing  through  our  Churches,  we  must  make 
them  secure  in  the  conviction  that  all  the  constitutional  provi- 
sions granted  at  the  beginning  to  these  Regional  Conferences 
are  to  be  preserved,  and  are  not  to  be  left,  as  I  repeat,  simply 
at  the  mercy  of  a  majority  vote  of  the  members  of  the  General 
Conference.  It  seems  to  me  there  is  a  necessity  for  this.  If  it 
be  not  necessary,  and  I  am  mistaken  in  that,  there  is  still  wis- 
dom in  it. 

Bishop  Cooke:  By  inserting  the  word  "constitutional,"  as 
suggested  by  Bishop  Denny,  you  necessarily  limit  the  General 
Conference  to  constitutional  questions.  Therefore  you  put  a 
prohibition  on  the  General  Conference  from  going  outside  of 
-  such  questions,  and  it  makes  it  absolutely  unconstitutional  for 
the  General  Conference  to  pass  a  statutory  law.  That,  there- 
fore, clothes  these  Regional  Conferences  with  powers  which 
the  General  Conference  does  not  possess — that  is,  the  pow- 
ers to  pass  all  statutory  enactments;  and  &  Regional  Con- 
6 


82     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

ference  may  do  anything  it  pleases  without  regard  to  what 
other  Regional  Conferences  do,  so  far  as  it  does  not  violate 
a  few  restrictive  rules  within  the  power  of  the  General  Con- 
ference. For  that  reason,  by  inserting  the  word  "constitutional," 
and  excluding  all  other  powers  of  legislation,  we  get  this  into 
a  shape  that  at  least  a  good  many  of  us  do  not  want  to  be  in. 

John  J.  W allace :  I  think  there  is  a  little  deeper  question  in- 
volved than  we  have  yet  touched  upon  in  this  matter.  In  Sub- 
section 2,  under  "Powers,"  we  say: 

Subject  to  the  limitations  and  restrictions  of  this  constitution,  each 
Regional  Conference  shall  have  full  legislative  power  over  all  distinctly 
Regional  affairs  within  its  area,  including  the  power  to  fix  the  boundaries 
of  Annual  Conferences,  Mission  Conferences,  and  Missions,  etc. 

There  is  the  granting  of  legislative  power  to  the  Regional  Con- 
ferences. Subsection  4  is  a  re-granting  of  large  powers.  In- 
stead of  being  an  inhibition,  it  is  a  grant  of  power.  We  are 
giving  the  Regional  Conferences  power  to  do  anything  that 
is  not  contrary  to  or  in  conflict  with  any  rule  or  regulation  made 
by  the  General  Conference  for  the  government  and  control  of 
the  connectional  affairs  of  the  Church,  and  I  submit  that  this 
section,  with  this  amendment,  should  be  transferred  to  Section 
2,  under  "Powers,"  and  should  follow  Subsection  2.  That  would 
make  this  a  simple  inhibition  or  limitation  on  the  power  that  we 
have  already  granted,  which  we  do  not  need  to  grant  in  this  sec- 
tion at  all,  and  that  would  cover  the  other  question. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  appeal  to  the  memories  of  Dr.  P>lake 
and  Mr.  Simpson.  I  think  what  Dr.  Wallace  has  proposed  was 
the  purpose  for  which  this  was  put  in,  and  the  place  of  it  is 
immaterial. 

Edgar  Blake :  May  I  call  attention  to  this,  that  this  does  not 
appear  to  be  a  grant  of  new  powers  to  the  Regional  Confer- 
ences? There  is  one  phrase  that  covers  that:  "Each  Regional 
Conference  may  in  the  exercise  of  the  powTers  provided  herein," 
which  powers  are  those  read  by  Dr.  Wallace  and  also  those  set 
forth  in  paragraph  3.  This  is  no  grant  of  new  power,  but 
simply  says  that  in  the  exercise  of  the  "powers  granted  here- 
in" ;  and,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  have  no  objection  to  either 
form,  but  I  think  the  matter  is  perfectly  safeguarded  in  the  form 
in  which  it  is  now. 

Bishop  McDowell:  I  understand  that  Dr.  Wallace  moves  sim- 
ply that  this  be  put  in  a  certain  place.  He  does  not  move  any 
change  in  language.    Is  that  correct,  Dr.  WTallace? 

John  J.  Wallace :  Yes,  although  I  think  the  words  "each  Re- 
gional Conference  may  elect"  and  "the  powers  provided  herein'' 
would  go  out  as  being  unnecessary  and  subject  to  misinterpre- 
tation. 

Edgar  Blake :  You  can  change  the  form  from  a  negative  to 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


83 


an  affirmative  and  provide  that  "no  Regional  Conference  shall 
make  any  rule  or  regulation  contrary  to  or  in  conflict  with  any 
rule  or  regulation  made  by  the  General  Conference  for  the  gov-, 
ernment  and  control  of  the  connectional  affairs  of  the  Church'' 
and  let  it  stand  where  Section  4  stands  now,  at  the  close  of  the 
section. 

John  J.  Wallace:  That  is  all  right. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  I  would  like  to  move  as  a  substitute  for  this 
Subsection  4  the  negative  form :  "No  Regional  Conference  shall 
pass  any  rule  or  regulation  contrary  to  or  in  conflict  with  any 
rule  or  regulation  made  by  the  General  Conference  for  the  gov- 
ernment and  control  of  the  connectional  affairs  of  the  Church." 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Is  that  substitute  seconded? 

It  was  seconded. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  The  substitute  is  before 
you. 

J-  W.  Van  Cleve:  I  think  the  objection  made  by  Dr.  Wallace 
is  a  perfectly  valid  objection  and  that  one  of  the  most  fruitful 
sources  of  discord  is  to  be  found  in  local  regulations  which  are 
somewhat  indefinite  in  their  interpretation  and  capable  of  vari- 
ous meanings.  This  would  seem  to  be  an  extension  of  power. 
Here  are  certain  powers  granted  in  the  original  statement,  "To 
make  rules  and  regulations."  It  doesn't  seem  to  be  necessary 
to  repeat  that,  but  it  is  open  to  the  statement  that,  while  this  is 
not  exactly  a  carrying  out  of  the  regulations  of  these  particu- 
lar things  that  are  specified,  it  is  something  necessary  to  carry 
out  what  is  specified.  Any  one  who  is  familiar  with  the  history 
of  legislation  and  of  decisions  upon  legislation  will  know  how 
often  that  question  is  raised.  Of  course,  his  power  is  not  di- 
rectly granted,  but  it  is  implied,  etc.,  and  a  difference  of  opinion 
develops.  Some  people  say  it  is  not  implied  and,  not  being  ex- 
pressly granted,  the  interpretation  will  depend  on  the  individual 
standpoint.  It  may  be  local,  it  may  be  exceptional,  and  you 
have  opened  the  way,  it  seems  to  me,  for  a  wide  divergence 
of  opinion;  and  it  will  be  exactly  the  same  if  you  introduce  the 
word  "constitutional"  in  the  statement  we  have  here. 

Bishop  Collins  Denny  here  took  the  chair. 

Edgar  Blake:  A  number  of  the  members  of  the  Committee  on 
Conferences  are  willing  to  accept  the  negative  form  proposed 
by  Dr.  Wallace  and  Dr.  Van  Cleve.  I  think  there  is  no  objec- 
tion to  it. 

David  G.  Downey :  How  would  it  read  ? 

Edgar  Blake:  "No  Regional  Conference  shall  in  the  exercise 
of  the  powers  provided  herein  make  any  rule  or  regulation  con- 
trary to  or  in  conflict  with  any  rule  or  regulation  made  by  the 
General  Conference  for  the  government  and  control  of  the  con- 
nectional affairs  of  the  Church." 


84     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Is  there  any  objection  to 
this  section  as  thus  read? 
There  was  no  objection. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny):  That  being  accepted  by  the 
Committee,  it  becomes  the  report  of  the  Committee  and  the  vote 
will  be  on  the  amendment  to  Subsection  4. 

Frank  M.  Thomas:  It  seems  to  me  we  ought  to  be  very  care- 
ful here.  These  Regional  Conferences  are  supposed  to  have  a 
measure  of  local  autonomy.  It  is  provided  for  in  a  way  in  Sub- 
section 2,  and  you  have  set  forth  that  it  may  have  certain  grants 
of  power  not  contrary  to  or  in  conflict  with  any  rule  or  regula- 
tion made  by  the  General  Conference  for  the  government  and 
control  of  the  connectional  affairs  of  the  Church.  That  is  a 
grant  of  powers  limited.  Now,  you  are  putting  it  in  the  nega- 
tive form.  It  strikes  me  there  is  a  considerable  difference  there 
between  saying  that  a  person  may  do  certain  things  under  cer- 
tain conditions  and  then  saying  that  he  must  not  do  certain  things 
under  certain  conditions.  One  is  a  charter  of  liberty  and  the 
other  is  a  mandatory  act,  that  he  shall  not.  If  you  are  going  to 
guard  the  Regional  Conferences  closely  (and  I  think  that  is 
right),  the  General  Conference  itself  should  be  guarded  closely. 
You  will  find  at  the  close  of  the  provisions  regarding  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  you  have  not  the  negative,  but  a  direct  state- 
ment to  govern  all  matters  of  a  connectional  character.  And 
if  the  General  Conference  violates  the  Constitution  of  the 
Church,  the  only  recourse  is  an  appeal  to  the  Judicial  Council, 
and  the  Judicial  Council  may  disapprove  the  act  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  and  then  the  General  Conference  may  disap- 
prove of  the  decision  of  the  Judicial  Council  and  refer  it  to  the 
Annual  Conferences.  It  strikes  me  if  you  are  going  to  put  a 
negative  in  the  one  section  you  ought  to  put  it  in  the  other. 

Henry  W.  Rogers :  I  move  the  previous  question. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Without  objection,  the  ques- 
tion will  be  taken. 

Bishop  Murrah :  Does  that  refer  to  the  amendment  offered 
by  you? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  It  covers  the  whole  question. 
Bishop  Cranston :  Was  the  amendment  offered  by  Bishop  Den- 
ny seconded? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny):  It  was  seconded  by  Dr. 
Goucher. 

Bishop  Murrah:  I  would  like  to  say  a  few  words. 
The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Is  there  any  objection  to 
hearing  Bishop  Murrah? 
There  was  none. 

Bishop  Murrah:  I  am  in  favor  of  the  motion  made  by  Bishop 
Denny,  for  this  reason :  It  may  not  be  necessary,  but  I  am  very 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


85 


deeply  concerned  about  the  matter  of  our  action  here  being  rati- 
fied. I  do  not  want  our  action  here  to  be  a  vain  thing ;  and  while 
none  of  us  is  prepared  to  diagnose  the  situation  with  absolute 
accuracy,  I  suppose  we  are  all  more  or  less  influenced  by  what 
we  think  will  be  the  effect  on  our  constituents.  I  think,  as  far 
as  the  immediate  section  of  the  country  with  which  I  am  most 
familiar  is  concerned,  there  is  going  to  be  a  very  decided  ob- 
jection to  a  large  number  of  Regional  Conferences.  We  do  not 
want  to  make  any  objection  to  anything  that  may  be  done.  It 
has  been  determined,  as  far  as  it  can  be  determined  here,  that 
there  shall  be  six  Regional  Conferences.  I  believe  it  will  be 
very  helpful  if  we  can  show  that  we  are  throwing  around  these 
Regional  Conferences  every  possible  safeguard,  and  for  that 
reason  I  believe  it  will  be  a  helpful  thing  to  adopt  the  amend- 
ment made  by  Bishop  Denny. 

Bishop  Cranston:  Without  discussing  the  details  of  your 
actions  concerning  Regional  Conferences,  I  want  to  say  this, 
and  it  comes  just  now  pertinently  as  suggested  by  the  remarks 
of  Bishop  Murrah :  Every  time  you  introduce  the  word  "con- 
stitutional" you  necessarily  invite  a  special  criticism.  I  think 
the  feeling  in  both  Churches  is  that  this  complicated  machin- 
ery is  largely  due  to  a  lack  of  confidence  between  the  two  Com- 
missions, or  between  the  two  Churches,  if  you  please.  As  I 
read  the  minds  of  both  Churches,  what  we  want  is  a  Church 
reorganized,  unified,  with  as  few  statements,  prolonged  discus- 
sions, and  suspicions  as  possible,  just  as  few  as  may  be  possible ; 
and  to  put  the  word  "constitutional"  here  repeatedly  is  every 
time  to  call  for  a  threat  on  the  part  of  somebody  antagonistic 
to  the  proposition  to  raise  the  question  of  constitution- 
ality then  and  there,  and  whenever  that  is  done  it  does  detract 
from  the  merits  of  the  debate  on  the  real  value  of  the  question 
before  the  house.  Any  divergence  is  a  distraction,  and  any  dis- 
traction at  a  time  when  some  important  question  is  pending  is 
a  detriment  to  the  efficiency  of  the  whole  body,  a  General  Con- 
ference or  any  other  body.  Now  let  us  trust  each  other  a  little 
more  fully.  It  is  written  here  that  the  Regional  Conference 
may  legislate  in  conformity  with  the  Constitution.  That  is  all 
you  need,  is  it  not?  Whenever  there  is  an  attempt  to  go  outside 
of  that,  is  it  not  sufficient  to  call  attention  to  that  provision  of 
the  Constitution  and  invoke  the  action  of  the  Judicial  Council? 
Now,  remember,  brethren,  by  this  unfavorable  repetition  looking 
toward  protection,  you  give  men  who  are  opposed  to  any  mat- 
ter— for  instance,  to  the  Regional  Conference  idea — a  place  to 
hang  an  objection  and  to  make  an  appeal  to  a  spirit  which, 
though  prevalent  in  both  Churches,  I  am  sorry  to  say  is  not 
worthy  of  a  place  in  our  attempt  under  God's  guidance  to  bring 
together  these  two  great  bodies  of  Methodists. 


86     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


Bishop  Mouzon :  Unless  the  Commission  gives  me  consent, 
I  cannot  speak.    What  is  the  motion  before  us? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  question  is  on  the 
amendment —  I  beg  pardon,  I  had  overlooked  the  fact  that 
there  was  a  motion  for  the  previous  question. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  I  would  like  to  say  a  word  or  two  before 
this  goes  to  a  vote. 

Bishop  McDowell :  Judge  Rogers  moved  the  previous  ques- 
tion when  nobody  desired  the  floor,  then  Bishop  Murrah  was 
given  the  floor,  and  I  am  sure  there  is  no  objection  to  hearing 
Bishop  Mouzon. 

Henry  W.  Rogers :  The  previous  question  has  not  been  put. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Xo,  but  that  was  the  fault 
of  the  Chair. 

Henry  W.  Rogers :  I  withdraw  the  motion  then. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  When  Bishop  Denny  first  proposed  his  amend- 
ment, it  appealed  to  me  and  I  saw  no  objection  to  it  whatever. 
It  appealed  to  me,  because  it  seemed  to  guard  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  the  Regional  Conferences.  But  further  considera- 
tion reveals  the  fact  that  there  is  great  danger  in  what  he  pro- 
poses. The  paragraph  as  now  presented  to  us  by  the  Committee 
reads : 

No  Regional  Conference  shall  in  the  exercise  of  the  powers  provided 
herein  make  rules  or  regulations  contrary  to  or  in  conflict  with  any  rules 
or  regulations  made  by  the  General  Conference  for  the  government  and 
control  of  the  connectional  affairs  of  the  Church. 

"Of  the  connectional  affairs  of  the  Church" — I  emphasize  that. 
The  General  Conference  will  make  many  rules  for  the  control 
of  the  connectional  affairs  of  the  Church.  I  think  the  opinion 
is  general  that  the  Constitution  of  the  Church  should  be  as 
small  as  it  safely  can  be.  Wre  do  not  intend  to  write  a  Consti- 
tution as  long  as  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  Oklahoma. 
Now,  if  you  say  that  your  Regional  Conference  "in  the  exer- 
cise of  its  power  shall  make  any  rules  or  regulations  in  conflict 
with  any  constitutional  rule  or  regulation."  then  you  give  to 
your  Regional  Conferences  the  power  to  make  rules  and  regu- 
lations that  are  in  conflict  with  the  statutory  provisions  of  your 
General  Conference.  If  you  definitely  say  they  shall  not  make 
rules  or  regulations  that  conflict  with  your  Constitution,  then 
it  is  implied  that  they  may  make  rules  and  regulations  that  are 
in  conflict  with  the  legislative  acts  of  your  General  Conference. 

Bishop  Denny :  Pardon  me,  but  not  by  law ;  as  Judge  Rogers 
can  tell  you,  such  a  thing  would  not  be  legal,  if  you  will  excuse 
me. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  Certainly  I  will  excuse  you ;  but  many  will 
be  saying  just  what  I  am  saying,  and  we  do  need  clarification 
in  this  unified  Church.    I  shall  not  vote  for  the  amendment. 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


87 


Henry  W.  Rogers:  Now  I  move  the  previous  question. 
The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  If  you  will  adopt  the  amend- 
ment, say  "Aye" — and  contrary  "No" — and  the  amendment  is 
lost. 

W.  N.  Ainsworth :  What  amendment  was  that  ? 
The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  one  I  offered. 
W.  N.  Ainsworth :  Did  not  Brother  Van  Cleve  offer  an  amend- 
ment? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  That  was  accepted  by  the 
Committee. 

George  Warren  Brown :  I  did  not  so  understand  it. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  My  amendment  was  that  we 
insert  between  the  words  "with"  and  "any,"  in  the  second  line  of 
that  bold-faced  type,  the  word  "constitutional." 

Alexander  Simpson,  Jr. :  It  was  between  the  words  "any"  and 
"rule." 

The  vote  was  again  taken  on  the  amendment  offered  by  Bishop 
Denny  and  was  declared  lost. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  vote  will  now  be  on 
Subsection  4  as  it  now  stands : 

No  Regional  Conference  shall  in  the  exercise  of  the  powers  provided 
herein  make  any  rule  or  regulation  contrary  to  or  in  conflict  with  any 
rule  or  regulation  made  by  the  General  Conference  for  the  government 
and  control  of  the  connectional  affairs  of  the  Church. 

What  is  the  use  of  having  those  words  "contrary  to  or"  ?  Would 
not  the  words  "in  conflict  with"  cover  the  whole  thing?  How- 
ever, I  will  put  the  vote. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  section  as  read  was  agreed  to. 

H.  M.  Du  Bose:  I  beg  respectfully  to  submit  a  suggestion 
touching  the  method  of  procedure ;  and  I  lay  emphasis  on  the 
word  "respectfully."  We  are  adopting  this  instrument  by  items 
and  adopting  it  tentatively.  I  beg  to  suggest  and  to  crave  the 
indulgence  of  the  body  that  we  offer  as  few  amendments  as  we 
possibly  can.  When  we  come  to  adopt  this  paper,  we  shall  have 
opportunity  to  correct  these  minor  things ;  so  let  us  move  as 
rapidly  as  we  can  and  get  through  the  tentative  adoption  of  this 
before  we  adjourn.  In  my  youthful  years  and  in  the  presence 
of  such  experienced  gentlemen,  I  hesitate  to  make  that  sug- 
gestion. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  What  is  the  next  question? 
A.  F.  Watkins :  Is  it  not  necessary  to  adopt  the  item  as 
amended  ? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  It  was  not  amended. 

A.  F.  Watkins:  Was  not  the  word  "connectional"  put  in  there? 


88     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  No,  sir;  it  was  adopted  just 
as  passed. 

Edgar  Blake :  What  was  the  form  of  Bishop  Mouzon's  motion 
on  which  we  are  acting? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  To  complete  this  report  of 
the  Committee  on  Conferences. 

Edgar  Blake :  Then  turn  to  page  8. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  What  about  page  6? 

Edgar  Blake :  That  is  not  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Con- 
ferences. It  is  the  report  of  the  Special  Committee  of  Eight. 
It  was  suggested  by  the  speaker  that  we  would  take  up  the  un- 
finished items  in  order,  and  that  would  now  bring  us  to  the  next 
unfinished  item  on  page  6;  but  the  action  was  that  we  should 
complete  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Conferences,  which 
would  bring  us  to  Article  8.  Now  what  is  the  pleasure  of  the 
Commission  ? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  We  are  proceeding  under 
the  vote  of  yesterday,  that  we  are  to  complete  the  report  of  the 
Committee  on  Conferences. 

Edgar  Blake:  Very  well.  Article  IX.,  Section  i.  Let  me  say 
concerning  this  item  that  at  our  meeting  in  Traverse  City  this 
item  was  tentatively  accepted  by  the  Joint  Commission 
in  a  slightly  modified  form.  The  form  in  which  it  was 
adopted  at  Traverse  City  provided  that  the  General  Conference 
shall  be  composed  of  one  minister  and  one  lay  delegate  for  each 
14,000  members  of  each  Regional  Jurisdiction.  That  is  to  say, 
it  provided  that  the  membership  of  the  General  Conference 
should  be  distributed  among  the  Regional  Conferences  on  the 
basis  of  their  membership,  providing  that  each  Regional  Con- 
ference should  be  entitled  to  two  delegates  in  the  General  Con- 
ference for  each  14,000  members  or  fractional  two-thirds  there- 
of, and  the  number  of  delegates  to  which  the  Regional 
Conference  was  entitled  should  be  apportioned  among  the  An- 
nual Conferences  in  accordance  with  their  membership.  Your 
Committee  attempted  to  apply  that  principle  of  first  granting 
to  the  Regional  Jurisdiction  the  number  of  delegates  to  which 
it  was  entitled  and  then  seeking  to  apportion  those  among  the 
Annual  Conferences.  We  found  great  difficulty  in  the  ap- 
plication of  that  principle  and  we  proposed  this  as  a  much  sim- 
pler form  and  we  provide  that 

The  General  Conference  shall  be  composed : 

(a)  Of  one  ministerial  and  one  lay  delegate  from  and  elected  by  each 
Annual  Conference  within  each  Regional  Jurisdiction  for  each  14,000 
Church  members  in  full  connection,  or  fraction  of  two-thirds  thereof ; 
provided,  that  each  Annual  Conference  shall  be  entitled  to  elect  at  least 
one  ministerial  and  one  lay  delegate;  and  provided,  further,  that  the  total 
number  of  delegates  elected  from  a  Regional  Jurisdiction  shall  not  be  less 
than  100. 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


89 


The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  We  are  now  proceeding 
under  the  five-minute  rule. 

A.  F.  Watkins :  Before  the  Doctor  goes  farther  I  call  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  that  Article  VIII.  ought  to  be  Article  IX. 

Edgar  Blake :  That  is  correct.  I  now  move  the  tentative  adop- 
tion of  this  Subsection  A. 

David  G.  Downey :  State  again  the  difference  between  this 
and  what  we  adopted  at  Traverse  City. 

Edgar  Blake:  At  Traverse  City  we  provided  that  each  for- 
eign Jurisdiction  should  be  entitled  to  two  delegates  for  each 
14,000  in  full  connection.  That  would  give  the  first  Conference 
140.  Then  we  provided  that  that  140  should  be  distributed 
and  apportioned  among  the  Annual  Conferences  of  the  Ju- 
risdiction in  proportion  to  their  membership,  provided  always 
that  each  Annual  Conference  should  be  entitled  to  at  least  two 
delegates.    We  found  great  difficulty  in  the  application  of  that. 

E.  B.  Chappell :  Not  one  of  us  could  find  out  how  many  dele- 
gates there  would  be. 

David  G.  Downey :  Then  you  do  not  limit  the  total  number 
in  the  General  Conference? 

Edgar  Blake:  That  comes  later  in  Subsection  2. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  I  would  like  to  ask  the  Committee,  what  is 
the  purpose  of  limiting  the  membership  from  any  region  to 
one  hundred? 

Edgar  Blake:  The  reason  for  that  was  this:  You  have  pro- 
vided elsewhere,  as  I  now  recall,  that  the  delegates  from  the 
Jurisdictional  General  Conferences  should  constitute  the  Re- 
gional Conferences  for  the  district  and  should  have  the  authority 
and  power  to  elect  bishops  for  the  district  and  also  have  legis- 
lative control  of  all  the  regional  affairs,  and  it  was  felt  that  less 
than  one  hundred  delegates  was  too  few  a  number  to  be  in- 
trusted with  so  important  a  duty. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  Doesn't  it  work  out  in  more  than  100  for 
every  region? 

Edgar  Blake:  Yes. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  I  move  to  strike  out  that  part,  "And  pro- 
vided, further,  that  the  total  number  of  delegates  elected  from 
the  Regional  Jurisdiction  shall  not  be  less  than  100." 

The  motion  was  seconded. 

Rolla  V.  Watt :  The  reason  I  propose  that  that  shall  be  stricken 
out  is  that  it  would  give  undue  representation  in  the  smaller 
Regional  Conferences,  and  so  long  as  the  matter  is  practically 
taken  care  of  we  can  let  it  go.  There  is  no  reason  why  any 
one  Conference  should  have  a  larger  representation.  It  seems 
to  be  a  qualification  not  necessary  or  advisable,  and  I  hope  you 
will  strike  those  words  out. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  My  understanding  is  that 


90     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

all  after  the  word  "delegates"  is  to  be  stricken  out  in  Sub- 
section A. 

Edgar  Blake:  We  have  provided  elsewhere  in  this  document 
that  the  General  Conferences  shall  have  power,  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  Regional  Conferences,  to  change  their  boundaries 
or  areas,  and  shall  have  power  to  change  their  boundaries 
or  areas  without  their  consent,  with  the  concurrence  of  two  suc- 
cessive General  Conferences.  It  is  quite  probable  that  these 
Conference  boundaries  will  need  to  be  changed,  and  as  the 
Church  grows  new  Regional  Jurisdictions  will  have  to  be  pro- 
vided. We  have  provided  that  no  new  Regional  Jurisdiction 
shall  be  created  with  less  than  500,000  members. 

Rolla  V.  Watt :  Your  plan  will  give  more  influence  to  the 
smaller  than  to  the  larger  Conferences. 

Edgar  Blake:  No.  It  seemed  to  your  committee  that  you 
have  to  provide  a  sufficient  number  of  delegates  in  those  Region- 
al Conferences  to  entitle  them  to  the  exercise  of  the  greatest 
powers.  In  other  words,  on  the  basis  of  one  hundred,  then  51 
men  decide  the  quality  and  the  acts  of  the  body.  I  don't  see 
how  anybody  would  be  satisfied  to  have  fewer  than  that  con- 
trol your  affairs. 

W.  N.  Ainsworth :  A  question  for  information:  Suppose  you 
had  a  Regional  area  that  would  elect  eighty  delegates  to  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  on  this  Annual  Conference  basis  of  representa- 
tion, how  would  you  provide  the  additional  twenty  to  get  that 
one  hundred? 

Edgar  Blake :  That  would  not  be  difficult.  For  instance, 
you  would  permit  each  Annual  Conference  to  elect  two  delegates 
for  each  14,000  or  fractional  two-thirds,  providing  each  An- 
nual Conference  shall  be  entitled  to  at  least  two.  If  after  you 
have  done  that  your  total  is  eighty,  you  have  ten  ministers  and 
ten  laymen  to  elect,  and  you  have  to  allot  the  election  of  those 
to  the  ten  Annual  Conferences  having  the  largest  excess  over 
the  14,000. 

W.  N.  Ainsworth :  That  does  not  make  that  clear. 

Edgar  Blake :  No,  but  that  matter  can  be  covered  by  statu- 
tory enactment  and  does  not  need  to  be  in  the  Constitution. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  That  is  a  very  good  point. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Are  you  ready  to  vote  on 
the  amendment  offered  by  Brother  Watt?  The  amendment  is 
that  in  Subsection  A  of  Article  IX.  we  strike  out  all  the  words 
after  the  word  "delegates."   That  is  the  whole  proviso. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  amendment  was  lost. 

A  further  vote  being  taken,  Subsection  A  was  adopted  ten- 
tatively. 

Edgar  Blake :  The  next  provision  is : 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


9i 


(b)  And  five  ministerial  and  five  lay  delegates  from  and  elected  by 
each  Central  Conference. 

This  is  put  in  with  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Status 
of  the  Colored  Membership,  and  will  come  up  elsewhere.  I  do 
not  know  whether  you  want  it  taken  up  now  or  whether  you  want 
to  delay  consideration  until  you  come  to  the  other  question. 

David  G.  Downey:  It  does  not  seem  to  me  that  we  can  take 
it  up  now.  It  ought  to  be  delayed  until  we  take  up  the  question 
of  the  Status  of  the  Negro  in  the  Reorganized  Church.  A  vote 
on  this  would  prejudge  that. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  move  that  we  defer  action  on  Subsection  (b). 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

Edgar  Blake :  The  next  is : 

(2)  The  numerical  basis  of  representation  of  the  Regional  and  Cen- 
tral Conferences  in  the  General  Conference  may  be  changed  by  the  Gen- 
eral Conference;  provided,  that  the  General  Conference  shall  not  be 
composed  of  less  than  650  nor  more  than  850  ministerial  and  lay  dele- 
gates in  equal  numbers. 

I  think  that  section  was  also  tentatively  accepted  at 
Traverse  City,  except  that  we  find  in  working  out  our 
numbers  for  the  General  Conference  that  the  minimum  number 
in  the  General  Conference  under  your  proposed  action  would  be 
650.  Therefore  we  changed  the  original  act  at  Traverse  City, 
which  read  "not  less  than  600  nor  more  than  800/'  to  "not  less 
than  650  nor  more  than  850."  It  is  a  change  of  50  in  the  mini- 
mum and  maximum  number  of  delegates. 

John  M.  Moore:  I  raise  the  question  of  the  change  of  the 
Central  Conference — hadn't  we  already  fixed  that? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  That  has  not  been  adopted. 

John  M.  Moore:  But  we  have  intimated  that  we  will  adopt 
something  that  will  make  a  fixed  rate  as  far  as  the  representa- 
tion of  the  Central  Conferences  in  the  General  Conference  is 
concerned,  and  then  the  General  Conference  is  not  given  the 
power  to  make  that  change,  as  I  understand  it.  It  seems  to 
me  that  the  words  "and  Central  Conferences"  should  be  stricken 
out. 

Bishop  McDowell:  There  is  a  possible  provision  that  Dr. 
Moore  calls  attention  to  and  that  Dr.  Blake,  I  think,  will  agree 
to  accept. 

Edgar  Blake:  You  mean  as  to  whether  you  want  to  fix  the 
number  of  the  representatives  from  the  Central  Conferences  in 
the  Constitution  beyond  the  power  of  the  General  Conference  to 
change?   Is  that  the  question? 

John  M.  Moore:  We  do  provide  in  the  Constitution  that  each 
of  the  Central  Conferences  shall  have  a  certain  representation 
in  the  General  Conference,  and  we  provide  for  a  way  of  bring- 


92     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

ing  in  that  representation.  Then  there  is  no  way  of  changing 
that  basis,  because  it  is  a  part  of  the  Constitution;  and  you  can- 
not leave  it  to  the  General  Conference  to  change  that  basis,  be- 
cause it  is  in  the  Constitution. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  Is  it  not  "not  exceeding"  a  certain  number? 

Frank  M.  Thomas:  We  have  just  passed  over  paragraph  (b), 
fixing  five  ministerial  and  five  lay  delegates  from  and  elected 
by  each  Central  Conference.    That  was  deferred. 

Edgar  Blake:  In  order  to  avoid  discussion,  let  me  suggest 
the  elimination  of  the  Central  Conference  for  the  time  being. 
If  you  decide  upon  a  fixed  number  for  the  numerical  repre- 
sentation of  Central  Conferences  in  the  Annual  Conferences, 
it  ought  not  to  be  changed;  but  if  you  provide  for 
proportional  representation  or  a  sliding  scale,  that  represen- 
tation ought  to  be  affected  as  the  membership  of  the  Church 
fluctuates,  as  the  membership  from  the  Regional  Conferences 
is  affected.  I  suggest  that  we  omit  this  reference  to  the  Central 
Conference  for  the  time  being  and  adopt  the  rest  tentatively. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Then  the  words  "and  Cen- 
tral Conferences"  are  stricken  out  temporarily. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  rest  of  this  section  was  tentatively 
agreed  to. 

Edgar  Blake :  The  third  section  reads  as  follows : 

(3)  The  ministerial  delegates  from  an  Annual  Conference  shall  be 
elected  by  the  ministerial  members  of  the  Annual  Conference,  and  the 
lay  delegates  by  the  lay  members  of  the  same. 

I  move  the  tentative  approval  of  paragraph  3  of  Section  1. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

Edgar  Blake :  The  next  section  reads  as  follows : 

(4)  The  ministerial  delegates  from  a  Central  Conference  shall  be 
elected  by  the  ministerial  members  of  the  Central  Conference,  and  the 
lay  delegates  by  the  lay  members  of  the  same. 

I  move  the  approval  of  that. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

Edgar  Blake :  The  next  item  is  at  the  bottom  of  page  10 : 

(11)  To  consider  and,  if  deemed  wise,  to  disapprove  of  the  decisions 
of  the  Judicial  Council  upon  any  constitutional  question  and  to  require 
its  submission  to  the  members  of  the  Annual  Conierences,  the  decision  of 
a  majority  of  whom,  present  and  voting,  shall  be  final  thereon. 

John  M.  Moore:  It  is  my  opinion  that  that  article  should  not 
be  adopted  until  we  have  passed  on  the  powers  of  the  Judicial 
Council.  I  think  this  will  not  be  necessary  when  we  give  a 
proper  statement  to  the  powers  of  the  Judicial  Council.    I  am 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


93 


opposed  to  the  adoption  of  this  section  at  this  time,  and  I  wish 
it  could  be  held  up  until  we  take  action  on  the  Judicial  Council. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  I  move  that  it  be  deferred. 

The  motion  was  seconded. 

Edgar  Blake :  To  get  along  as  fast  as  we  can,  let  us  tentative- 
ly adopt  this,  and  then  if  we  find  that  it  is  necessary  to  recon- 
sider it  we  will  do  so. 

John  M.  Moore :  I  agree  with  that. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  move  its  tentative  approval. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Does  the  committee  object 
to  the  insertion  of  the  word  "several"  after  the  word  "the"  at 
the  end  of  the  first  line  on  page  1 1  ? 

Edgar  Blake :  No,  we  do  not  object  to  that. 

By  unanimous  consent  this  change  was  made. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  I  would  like  to  move  this  amendment : 
That  in  place  of  the  word  "majority"  we  put  the  words  "two- 
thirds"  :  "The  decision  of  two-thirds  of  those  present  and  vot- 
ing shall  be  final  thereon." 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Is  that  amendment  seconded? 

Charles  A.  Pollock :  I  second  it. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  I  am  a  little  doubtful  of  the  wisdom  of 
submitting  a  decision  of  the  Judicial  Council,  men  specially  se- 
lected for  a  particular  duty,  to  a  referendum  and  allow  a  bare 
majority  to  overturn  it.  I  think  a  decision  of  the  Judicial 
Council  ought  to  have  a  stronger  standing  than  will  permit  it 
to  be  overturned  by  a  majority.  It  ought  to  require  two-thirds 
of  the  popular  vote  of  the  Church  to  override  the  action  of  the 
Judicial  Council. 

Edwin  M.  Randall:  I  wish  to  second  that.  The  overruling  of 
a  decision  of  the  Judicial  Council  should  never  amount  to  an 
amendment  to  the  Constitution.  An  amendment  can  only  be 
made  in  regular  order  by  a  two-thirds  vote ;  and  inasmuch  as 
the  overruling  of  a  decision  will  practically  amount  to  judi- 
cial legislation,  as  we  may  call  it,  an  amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution, I  believe  it  should  be  on  a  parity  with  the  other  meth- 
od of  amendment. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  I  am  not  so  eager  about  the  amendment. 
I  don't  think  it  is  based  on  sound  grounds.  We  know  that  when 
a  question  comes  from  a  Judicial  Council,  if  a  careful  consid- 
eration of  that  body  reaches  a  practically  unanimous  decision 
on  that  question,  it  goes  before  the  Annual  Conferences  with  a 
force  and  power  back  of  it  which  would  carry  it  through  under 
almost  any  and  every  circumstance;  and  ought  to.  But  suppose 
the  question  comes  from  a  decision  of  the  Judicial  Council  by 
a  majority  vote  of  one :  Are  you  going  to  have  the  majority 
vote  of  one  of  the  Judicial  Council  require  two-thirds  of  all  the 
membership  of  the  Annual  Conferences  voting  to  overturn  that? 


94     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

In  other  words,  are  we  not  getting  a  long  way  from  the  demo- 
cratic constitution?  Is  it  not  our  desire  to  keep  things  steady, 
so  that  the  Constitution  of  the  Church  shall  not  be  altered  in 
any  way,  but  that  it  shall  still  be  subject  to  the  action  of  the 
body  of  the  Church?  If  the  amendment  covers  that,  that  a 
unanimous  or  practically  unanimous  vote  should  require  two- 
thirds  of  the  action  of  the  members  of  the  Church,  I  would 
assent  to  it.  I  think  that  would  be  reasonable;  but  I  don't 
think  a  single  vote  in  the  Judicial  Council  should  be  equivalent 
practically  to  one-third  of  the  membership  of  the  whole  Church 
or  should  require  one-third  of  the  membership  of  the  whole 
Church  to  override  it. 

George  Warren  Brown :  I  would  prefer  to  trust  a  bare  ma- 
jority of  the  Judicial  Council  rather  than  a  bare  majority  of  the 
General  Conference. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  This  is  the  Annual  Conferences. 

George  Warren  Brown:  Or  the  Annual  Conferences.  And, 
therefore,  I  am  in  favor  of  requiring  a  two-thirds  majority  to 
override  the  action  of  the  Judicial  Council. 

Edgar  Blake :  The  question  is  as  to  whether  you  want  to  amend 
the  Constitution  by  a  judicial  decision.  That  is  really  the  ques- 
tion. We  have  our  fundamental  law.  Now,  the  question  is 
whether  you  want  to  amend  it  by  a  judicial  decision,  and  that 
is  what  this  amendment  offered  by  Dr.  Van  Cleve  will  provide. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  I  think  that  is  a  mistake.  It  appears  to  me 
that  the  effect  would  be  rather  to  prevent  the  amendment  of  the 
Constitution  by  a  judicial  decision. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  would  like  to  point  out  this  to  my  friend  Dr. 
Van  Cleve,  that  when  you  require  a  constitutional  majority  to 
override  a  judicial  decision  you  are  giving  that  judicial  de- 
cision the  authority  of  fundamental  law.  Am  I  not  right  in 
that?  In  other  words,  your  motion  provides  just  the  opposite 
to  what  you  intend  to  accomplish.  Now  the  question  comes  as 
to  the  interpretation  of  the  Constitution.  The  committee  sug- 
gests that  when  it  comes  to  the  interpretation  of  the  constitu- 
tional or  fundamental  law  the  final  authority  ought  to  be  a  ma- 
jority of  the  body  elected. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr.:  Not  a  majority  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence. 

Edgar  Blake:  Not  a  majority  of  the  General  Conference.  I 
think  that  is  a  safe  way. 

E.  C.  Reeves :  The  decision  of  the  Judicial  Council  is  not  an 
amendment  to  the  constitutional  law,  but  simply  tells  us  what 
the  Constitution  is. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  Let  us  come  down  to  a  concrete  case.  Sup- 
pose a  constitutional  question  is  raised.  It  is  decided  by  the  Judi- 
cial Council,  and  the  General  Conference  dissents  by  a  two- 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


95 


thirds  majority.  Then  the  majority  of  the  Annual  Conferences 
may  approve  that  judicial  decision,  and  that  actually  does  become 
the  law  of  the  Church;  and  being  on  a  constitutional  question  a 
part  of  the  fundamental  law  of  the  Church,  until  that  decision 
is  overruled  by  somebody  you  have  something  that  becomes 
a  part  of  your  fundamental  law  for  which  only  a  bare 
majority  of  the  Annual  Conferences  has  voted.  I  do  not 
think  that  ought  to  be  possible.  I  do  not  think  it  should  be  pos- 
sible for  anybody  to  say  that  a  judicial  decision  should  become 
part  of  the  organic  law  of  the  Church  until  it  has  had  the  sanc- 
tion of  two-thirds  of  the  General  Conference  and  two-thirds  of 
the  Annual  Conferences. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  Suppose  the  entire  membership  of 
the  General  Conference  did  not  agree  with  the  majority — say 
a  majority  of  one  of  the  Judicial  Councils  and  sixty-five  per 
cent  of  the  Annual  Conferences  agreed  with  the  General  Con- 
ference :  Is  it  not  true  that  the  action  of  the  Judicial  Council 
by  a  majority  of  one  would  be  fixed  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
Church  on  that  point? 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  A  majority  of  one  in  the  Judicial  Council? 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  Yes,  as  against  the  entire  General  Con- 
ference and  sixty-five  per  cent  of  the  Annual  Conferences. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  I  think  it  requires  two-thirds  of  the  Ju- 
dicial Council  present  and  voting  to  pass  on  constitutional  mat- 
ters. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  Let  us  see.  I  will  read  from  Section 
9  of  the  Judicial  Council : 

Two-thirds  of  the  Judicial  Council  shall  constitute  a  quorum.  Con- 
stitutional matters  shall  be  decided  by  a  majority  vote  of  the  entire  Judi- 
cial Council. 

So  you  see  it  does  not  say  two-thirds  of  the  Judicial  Council. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  I  stand  corrected  on  that  particular  point. 

Edwin  M.  Randall :  In  order  to  have  clearly  before  us  the  point 
I  wish  to  make  in  support  of  Dr.  Van  Cleve's  motion  to  amend, 
we  must  keep  in  mind  the  procedure.  We  will  begin  with  an 
enactment  of  the  General  Conference  that  would  come  under 
review  of  the  Judicial  Council.  There  will  be  no  appeal  from 
any  action  of  the  Judicial  Council  except  in  setting  aside  an 
enactment  of  the  General  Conference.  The  General  Confer- 
ence will  then  dissent  from  the  setting  aside  of  its  act.  In  the 
judgment  of  the  Judicial  Council  that  act  of  the  'General  Con- 
ference will  be  unconstitutional.  It  will  be  like  many  a  law 
which  is  passed  in  accordance  with  the  current  wish  of  the 
Church — a  popular  demand,  but  contrary  to  what  is  permitted 
by  the  Constitution  in  the  judgment  of  our  judicial  experts. 
Now  usually  I  think,  as  to  the  constitutionality,  the  Judicial 
Council  will  be  undoubtedly  right;  and  if  that  enactment  of 


g6     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

the  General  Conference  is  to  stand  against  the  judgment  of 
the  Judicial  Council  it  will  ordinarily  amount  to  a  modifica- 
tion of  the  Constitution  to  uphold  that  enactment.  Therefore, 
I  believe  it  ought  to  require  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  members 
of  the  Annual  Conferences  in  order  to  uphold  an  enactment 
of  the  General  Conference  against  the  judgment  of  the  Judicial 
Council. 

Henry  W.  Rogers :  I  simply  want  to  go  on  record  as  ex- 
pressing the  opinion  that  this  entire  provision  is  absolutely 
wrong.  The  Church  ought  to  take  the  position  that  the  State 
takes.  The  decision  of  its  judicial  tribunal  should  be  final  and 
conclusive.  Submitting  a  judicial  decision  to  a  popular  vote 
has  been  absolutely  destroyed  and  put  to  one  side  as  unworthy 
of  consideration  so  far  as  the  judicial  tribunal  of  the  State  is 
concerned.  That  question  has  been  discussed  over  and  over 
again  in  the  American  Bar  Association,  and  every  time  the 
American  Bar  Association  has  gone  on  record  as  absolutely 
opposed  to  any  submission  of  judicial  decisions  to  a  popular 
vote.  If  there  is  anything  in  a  judicial  tribunal,  it  consists  in 
being  so  constituted  that  it  can  decide  legal  questions.  You  can- 
not decide  legal  questions  by  a  popular  vote,  and  I  wish  the 
whole  thing  could  be  revised,  because  we  are  on  the  wrong 
track  in  having  any  such  provision  at  all. 

George  Warren  Brown :  Will  you  make  a  motion  to  that  effect  ? 

Henry  W-  Rogers:  I  am  willing  to  make  the  motion  that  this 
subject  be  recommitted  to  the  Committee. 

George  Warren  Brown :  I  second  the  motion. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  hope  you  will  not  recommit.  I  hope  you  will 
vote  it  up  or  down.  It  is  the  principal  thing  involved  here.  I 
quite  appreciate  the  force  of  what  Judge  Rogers  has  said  con- 
cerning the  attitude  of  the  Bar  Association,  indeed  the  atti- 
tude of  the  legal  profession  as  a  whole ;  but  the  question  comes 
here  in  the  interpreting  of  the  fundamental  law  of  the  Church, 
and  it  seemed  to  the  Committee  that  it  would  be  wise  to  make 
the  body  elected,  twenty-five  or  thirty  thousand  laymen  who 
will  make  up  that  body — that  it  was  wise  to  give  them  the  final 
say  on  what  should  be  the  interpretation  of  the  fundamenal 
law  of  the  organization.  Don't  recommit  this.  Vote  it  up  or 
down  and  settle  it. 

Ira  E.  Robinson :  I  simply  rise  to  join  with  Judge  Rogers  in 
his  admonition.  I  don't  think  we  should  put  in  the  organic  law 
of  the  Church  the  power  of  the  people  to  override  a  judicial 
decision.  We  have  in  the  two  branches  of  the  Methodist  Church 
great  lawyers  who  are  able  to  decide  constitutional  questions 
that  arise  in  the  Church;  and  if  this  provision  is  to  be  left  in 
here  at  all,  I  greatly  favor  the  amendment  requiring  a  two- 
thirds  vote  to  reverse  the  judgment  of  the  Judicial  Council. 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


97 


Bishop  Hoss  took  the  chair  as  presiding  officer. 

Henry  W-  Rogers:  May  I  suggest  that  I  withdraw  the  mo- 
tion to  recommit?  and  if  you  will  permit  me  I  move  that  this 
particular  provision  be  disapproved  of. 

The  motion  was  seconded. 

Bishop  Denny :  I  want  to  say  a  word  before  that  is  put.  Here 
are  two-thirds :  In  the  first  place  there  is  an  analogy  offered  where 
no  analogy  exists,  and  yet  the  analogy  is  given  in  order  to  lay 
down  a  great  constitutional  principle.  Here  is  an  example,  on 
the  other  side,  of  technically  trained  men,  when  they  get  out 
of  the  range  in  which  they  are  trained,  going  astray.  What  is 
the  analogy  here?  There  is  not  one  of  you  who  does  not  apply 
it  to  the  theologian,  and  you  understand  how  it  can  be  applied 
to  the  lawyer.  What  is  the  condition  of  things  on  which  Judge 
Rogers  bases  his  statement?  No  judge  is  put  on  the  bench  in 
these  United  States,  and  ought  not  to  be  put  on  the  bench  in 
any  State,  who  is  not  technically  trained  in  the  law.  Therefore, 
to  say  that  men  who  have  had  no  technical  training  should  be 
allowed  by  referendum  to  overturn  what  has  been  determined 
by  technically  trained  and  especially  trained  men  is  one  thing. 
What  have  we  done  with  the  Judicial  Council?  We  will  pre- 
sume that  you  have  taken  some  of  the  best  men  you  have  and 
put  them  on  the  Judicial  Council.  Every  one  of  them  may  be 
incompetent,  but  they  are  the  Judicial  Council.  In  the  next 
place  you  take  not  less  than  100  men  out  of  each  Regional 
Conference  for  membership  in  your  General  Conference.  Every 
one  of  them  is  disqualified  from  service  on  your  Judicial  Coun- 
cil. You  have  left  for  service  in  the  Judicial  Council,  not  the 
best  men,  but  only  the  remnants ;  and  then  we  have  in  the  Judi- 
cial Council — and  with  this  I  thoroughly  disagree — the  wholly 
untrained  men,  specially  chosen  for  judicial  work,  and  their  de- 
cisions you  say  should  not  be  overturned  by  a  body  of  men  of  bet- 
ter training.  It  is  perfectly  clear  to  me  that  the  analogy  doesn't 
hold.  If  we  are  going  to  continue  the  Judicial  Council 
on  the  basis  on  which  we  place  it,  surely  we  ought  to  be 
able  to  say  that  a  bare  majority  of  that  Judicial  Council  shall 
not  be  able  to  determine  the  Constitution  of  the  Church,  and 
the  analogy  does  not  hold,  and  these  brethren  have  been  led 
astray  by  putting  the  thing  on  a  false  basis. 

Charles  A.  Pollock:  I  move  as  a  substitute  for  all  that  is  be- 
fore us' now  that  this  section  under  consideration  be  indefinitely 
postponed. 

Bishop  Denny  resumed  the  chair  as  presiding  officer. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Is  a  motion  for  indefinite 
postponement  subject  to  debate?  First,  the  motion  was  not 
seconded. 

Bishop  Hoss :  I  take  great  pleasure  in  seconding  that  motion 
7 


98     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

of  Judge  Pollock's.  I  think  this  whole  machinery  is  out  of  place. 
We  do  not  need  it.  It  won't  work,  and  the  sooner  we  get  rid 
of  the  idea  that  it  will  work  the  better  it  will  be  for  all  of  us. 
I  am  getting  along  toward  the  point  where  I  am  about  to  retire 
from  the  College  of  Bishops. 

Charles  A.  Pollock :  I  think  possibly  the  Bishop  misunder- 
stood me.  My  motion  is  simply  to  postpone  indefinitely  this 
section. 

Bishop  Hoss:  Oh,  you  didn't  propose  to  indefinitely  post- 
pone the  Judicial  Council?  I  will  still  agree  with  you.  I  will 
vote  for  your  motion ;  but  there  is  one  motion  I  would  rather 
vote  for  than  your  motion,  and  that  is  to  kill  it. 

David  G.  Downey :  I  think  we  ought  to  go  a  little  slow  on  this 
matter  of  either  putting  aside  this  section  or  indefinitely  post- 
poning it.  I  have  no  question  at  all  as  to  the  legitimacy  of  the 
argument  made  by  Judge  Rogers  and  Mr.  Robinson  in  the  realm 
of  strictly  legal  affairs;  but  when  we  come  to  the  consideration 
of  Church  matters,  I  do  not  think  we  can  follow  exactly  the 
principles  of  courts. 

Ira  E.  Robinson :  Will  you  permit  a  correction  ?  Is  not  the 
Judicial  Council  made  up  of  technically  trained  men,  Church 
lawyers  and  civil  lawyers,  as  capable  of  dealing  with  the  affairs 
of  the  Church  as  the  men  on  the  civil  bench  are  capable  of  deal- 
ing with  civil  affairs? 

David  G.  Downey :  I  question  that,  in  view  of  what  Bishop 
Denny  pointed  out  as  to  whether  we  will  get  just  the  right  kind 
of  men.  There  will  have  to  be  a  good  deal  of  sacrifice  on  the 
part  of  ministers  and  laymen  who  prefer  membership  in  the 
General  Conference  to  membership  on  this  Judicial  Council. 
But  the  point  I  make  is,  we  ought  to  form  a  constitution  for  a 
democratic  Church.  We  ought  not  to  be  tying  ourselves  up  to 
a  little  autocratic  body  with  practically  absolute  power.  Now, 
if  you  cut  this  out  or  indefinitely  postpone  it,  you  make  it  pos- 
sible for  the  Judicial  Council  finally  to  settle  things.  I  believe 
that  the  apprehension  is  that  the  final  authority  may  run  down 
to  the  laity  and  ministers ;  and  it  may  be  very  possible  that  we 
would  get  a  decision  from  a  Judicial  Council  which  would  be  le- 
gally accurate,  but  which  would  run  counter  to  the  great  desires 
of  the  rank  and  file  of  the  Church  and  might  stand  in  the  way  of 
progress.  Therefore,  I  am  in  favor  of  this  provision  or  some 
similar  provision  that  will  make  it  possible  for  a  decision  of 
the  Judicial  Council  to  be  in  a  sense  reviewed  by  the  General 
Council  and  the  entire  membership  of  the  Church  voting  as  a 
Constitution-making  body.  The  power  of  making  a  Consti- 
tution inheres  in  us,  not  in  the  General  Conference  alone, 
and  not  in  the  Judicial  Council  alone,  but  in  the  General  Con- 
ference plus  the  laity  plus  the  ministers,  and  I  believe  we  ought 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


99 


to  have  the  right  to  review  the  exceptional  cases  which  will  be 
called  for. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  While  I  agree  absolutely  with  the  conclusions 
of  Bishop  Denny,  I  could  not  follow  his  argument,  because  I 
believe  there  are  just  as  able  ministers  who  have  not  been  elected 
bishops  as  those  who  have  been  elected  bishops ;  and,  further, 
I  think  there  are  just  as  able  ministers  and  laymen  who  have 
never  been  elected  to  the  General  Conference  as  those  who  have 
been  elected. 

A.  W.  Harris :  Oh,  no,  no. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  Therefore,  I  think  there  is  plenty  of  material 
in  the  Church  for  constituting  this  body. 

Bishop  Denny:  Evidently  the  Commission  agrees  with  you 
so  far  as  the  bishops  are  concerned. 

Rolla  V-  Watt:  I  would  be  sorry  to  have  this  section  taken 
out,  and  I  believe  in  a  majority  vote.  I  believe  people  can  be 
trusted.  They  are  entitled  to  be  trusted.  I  believe  when  you 
send  a  measure  down  to  the  Conferences  you  get  the  opinion 
of  the  whole  Church.  The  ministers  of  the  Church  study 
these  things  more  carefully  than  the  laymen,  but  nevertheless 
these  matters  are  studied  and  the  decisions  are  generally  correct. 

Bishop  Cooke :  I  believe  it  would  be  an  exceedingly  dangerous 
thing  to  take  this  out  of  this  place. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  motion  is  to  recommit. 

Alexander  Simpson,  Jr. :  No,  the  motion  was  for  an  indefinite 
postponement. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Thank  you.  There  is  noth- 
ing more  important  than  to  have  proper  checks.  To  take  this 
out  and  to  leave  no  checks  at  all  upon  the  decision  of  the  Ju- 
dicial Council  would  be  to  give  such  power  to  the  Judicial 
Council  that  in  a  very  short  time  the  Church  would  be  in  trou- 
ble. On  the  other  hand,  it  would  put  the  General  Conference 
in  a  situation  anomalous  to  that  in  England  and  to  some  places  in 
this  country  where  they  give  the  body  that  passes  the  laws  the 
power  to  judge  of  the  constitutionality  of  its  own  enactments.  To 
take  this  out  takes  away  the  power  of  the  General  Conference 
to  supervise  the  decisions  of  the  Judicial  Council.  Proper 
checks  and  balances  demand  that  this  stay  in,  that  the  Judicial 
Council  shall  recognize  that  there  is  another  power  above  it, 
and  that  the  General  Conference,  in  case  of  division,  shall  send 
it  down  to  the  people,  the  source  of  all  power,  to  know  what 
they  want;  therefore,  with  due  regard  to  Judge  Pollock,  I 
think  the  motion  to  postpone  indefinitely  should  not  be  carried. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  motion  of  Judge  Pollock  was  declared 
lost. 

A  further  vote  being  taken  on  the  motion  of  Dr.  Van  Cleve, 


ioo     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

to  insert  "two-thirds"  instead  of  "a  majority,"  the  same  was 
carried  by  a  vote  of  29  to  12. 

A  further  vote  being  taken,  the  section  as  amended  was 
agreed  to. 

Frank  M.  Thomas :  I  want  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that 
Dr.  Van  Cleve's  motion  was  in  line  with  the  suggestion  of  the 
Committee  of  Nine. 

Edgar  Blake :  The  next  item  is  found  on  page  16,  Article  XL 

Bishop  Mouzon :  Before  you  pass  that  I  should  like  to  ask  a 
question.  On  page  1 1,  under  "Restrictions,"  the  printer  didn't 
get  his  English  exactly  right:  "(2)  The  General  Conference 
shall  not  change  nor  alter  any  part  or  rule  of  our  government 
so  as  to  do  away  with  episcopacy,  nor  to  do  away  with  an  itin- 
erant general  superintendency."  Why  is  that  changed  from  the 
reading  of  the  restrictive  rule  as  now? 

Edgar  Blake :  Does  that  change  the  present  restrictive  rule  ? 

Bishop  Mouzon :  Yes,  and  they  have  "nor"  instead  of  "or." 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Don't  quibble  over  that;  there 
is  authority  both  ways. 

Bishop  Hoss :  There  is  another  difference,  "an  itinerant  gen- 
eral superintendency." 

Bishop  Mouzon:  The  rule  reads,  "shall  not  change  or  alter 
any  part  or  rule  of  our  government,  so  as  to  do  away  with 
episcopacy,  or  destroy  the  plan  of  our  itinerant  general  super- 
intendency." And  that  word  "plan"  has  been  one  of  the  most 
important  words  in  it,  and  I  should  like  for  it  to  stay  there. 
The  original  restrictive  rule  did  not  simply  say  "a  plan  of 
itinerant  general  superintendency,"  but  "our  plan." 

Edgar  Blake:  These  matters  of  infelicity  in  the  use  of  words 
will  be  corrected  by  a  committee  to  be  appointed  for  that  pur- 
pose. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  But  I  rise  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact 
that  this  is  far  more  than  an  infelicity  in  the  use  of  the  English 
language.  In  this  one  of  the  most  important  constitutional  mat- 
ters before  us  is  involved. 

Edgar  Blake :  That  would  involve  a  reconsideration  of  the 
item,  which  I  hope  will  not  be  done  at  this  time.  Let  us  get 
through  and  then  go  back  and  consider  any  of  these  matters — 
just  defer  the  matter  for  a  moment. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  I  am  entirely  willing  to  defer  it,  if  it  only 
finally  comes  up. 

Edgar  Blake:  The  next  is  Article  XL,  on  page  16: 

Article  XI.  Amendments. 

Section  1.  The  recommendation  of  two-thirds  of  all  the  members  of 
the  several  Annual  Conferences  present  and  voting  shall  suffice  to  au- 
thorize the  next  ensuing  General  Conference  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  its 
members  present  and  voting  to  alter  or  amend  any  of  the  provisions  of 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


IOI 


this  Constitution ;  and  also,  whenever  such  alteration  or  amendment  shall 
have  been  first  recommended  by  a  General  Conference,  by  a  two-thirds 
vote  of  its  members  present  and  voting,  then  so  soon  as  two-thirds  of 
all  the  members  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences  present  and  voting 
shall  have  concurred  therein,  provided  that  such  concurrence  shall  take 
place  previous  to  the  meeting  of  the  next  ensuing  General  Conference, 
such  alteration  or  amendment  shall  take  effect;  and  the  result  of  the 
vote  shall  be  announced  by  the  general  superintendents. 

Recommendations. 

1.  We  recommend  that,  following  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution, 
or  within  four  years  thereafter,  the  status  of  the  Colored  Central  Con- 
ference Jurisdiction  be  submitted  to  the  Annual  and  Lay  Conferences  of 
said  jurisdiction  for  determination;  and  if  a  majority  of  the  members  of 
said  Annual  and  Lay  Conferences,  present  and  voting,  shall  elect  to 
accept  the  status  of  a  Jurisdictional  General  Conference,  said  jurisdiction 
shall  be  recognized  as  such,  with  all  the  privileges  and  powers  of  the 
same,  otherwise  the  Colored  Central  Conference  shall  be  recognized  as 
a  Central  Conference. 

2.  We  recommend  that  in  organizing  the  Colored  Central  Conference 
or  the  Colored  Jurisdictional  General  Conference  the  Commission  invite 
the  members  of  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  such  other 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  organizations  composed  of  members  of  Afri- 
can descent  to  consider  the  feasibility  and  desirability  of  uniting  them- 
selves in  the  proposed  organization. 

I  move  the  tentative  adoption  of  this  section. 

David  G.  Downey :  I  move  to  strike  out,  after  the  word  "mem- 
bers" in  the  fourth  line  and  after  the  word  "members"  in  the 
seventh  line,  the  words  "present  and  voting."  We  have  already- 
provided  that  two-thirds  of  the  members  elected  to  the  General 
Conference  shall  be  necessary  to  a  quorum.  Therefore  when 
you  have  two-thirds  of  the  General  Conference  present  you 
have  a  quorum,  and  when  you  have  a  quorum  you  have  the  en- 
tire General  Conference.  All  that  is  necessary  to  say  is,  "the 
recommendation  of  two-thirds  of  all  the  members  of  the  several 
Annual  Conferences."  The  words  are  unnecessary,  and  I  move 
to  strike  them  out. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Let  me  understand  that.  I 
understand  the  Committee  to  desire  that  there  shall  be  no  vote 
possible  in  the  General  Conference  unless  there  be  a  quorum 
present,  and  to  get  that  in  the  General  Conference  there  shall 
be  two-thirds  of  those  who  are  there — that  is,  of  the  quorum 
or  more  than  a  quorum.  You  propose  simply  a  majority  of 
those  present  there. 

David  G.  Downey :  My  point  is  this :  You  cannot  act  on  a 
constitutional  question  in  the  General  Conference  without  a 
quorum. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Or  on  any  other  question. 

David  G.  Downey:  When  you  have  a  quorum  present,  you 
have  the  entire  General  Conference  present.  That  is  the  law 
in  regard  to  amendments  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 


102    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

John  M.  Moore:  If  you  leave  out  those  words,  would  it  not 
be  necessary — supposing  the  General  Conference  had  eight  hun- 
dred members  composing  it,  would  it  not  take  two-thirds  of  the 
eight  hundred? 

David  G.  Downey:  No. 

John  M.  Moore:  I  claim  it  would,  and  that  is  the  reason  we 
have  put  that  in  there. 

David  G.  Downey:  I  want  to  make  it  clear  by  saying  that  it 
shall  require  two-thirds  of  the  General  Conference,  and  that 
means  two-thirds  of  a  quorum,  that  and  only  that ;  if  more 
than  a  quorum  is  present,  it  means  two-thirds  of  those  who  are 
present. 

Edgar  Blake:  If  you  omit  those  words  "present  and  voting," 
so  that  it  stands  "the  recommendation  of  two-thirds  of  all  the 
members  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences  shall  suffice,"  etc., 
the  question  will  immediately  arise  as  to  whether  that  means 
two-thirds  of  the  entire  membership  of  the  Annual  Conferences 
or  two-thirds  of  the  quorum. 

Edwin  M.  Randall:  Of  the  General  Conferences? 

Edgar  Blake:  No;  of  the  Annual  Conferences.  This  very 
matter  came  up  and  caused  some  difficulty  in  the  last  quadren- 
nium.  The  thing  the  Committee  desires  to  make  plain  is  that 
all  that  is  required  is  simply  two-thirds  of  the  vote  of  the 
quorum,  "of  those  present  and  voting."  There  is  no  chance 
for  any  one  then  to  rise  and  question  that.  Putting  in  "present 
and  voting"  in  connection  with  the  membership  of  the  Annual 
Conferences,  and  putting  those  words  in  with  reference  to  the 
General  Conferences,  was  to  make  perfectly  clear  that  all  that 
is  required  was  two-thirds  of  the  vote  of  the  quorum. 

Bishop  Hoss:  Two-thirds  of  two-thirds? 

Edgar  Blake:  Yes. 

Bishop  Hoss:  And  not  necessarily  have  two-thirds  of  all 
elected? 

George  Warren  Brown :  I  move  the  previous  question. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  the  main 
question  was  ordered. 

A  further  vote  being  taken,  the  amendment  of  Dr.  Downey 
was  lost. 

A  further  vote  being  taken,  the  section  was  approved. 

Edgar  Blake:  That  completes  the  report  of  the  Committee 
on  Conferences,  unless  you  desire  to  reconsider  items  previous- 
ly carried. 

Bishop  Mouzon:  I  move  that  we  reconsider  Item  2  under 
"Restrictions,"  on  page  II. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  second  that  motion  to  get  it  before  the  Com- 
mission. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  motion  to  reconsider  was  carried. 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


103 


Bishop  Mouzon :  I  move  to  amend  Article  II.  under  Re- 
strictions, so  that  it  will  read:  "The  General  Conference  shall 
not  change  or  alter  any  part  or  rule  of  our  government  so  as 
to  do  away  with  episcopacy,  or  to  destroy  the  plan  of  our  itin- 
erant general  superintendency." 

Edgar  Blake:  Will  Bishop  Mouzon  permit  a  suggestion? 
When  we  go  through,  we  will  correct  the  language. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  I  want  it  done  now.  "The  General  Confer- 
ence shall  not  change  or  alter  any  part  or  rule  of  our  govern- 
ment so  as  to  do  away  with  our  episcopacy  or  destroy" — take 
out  the  words  "do  away  with"  and  put  in  the  word  "destroy," 
and  do  away  with  that  "an"  and  insert  the  words  "the  plan  of 
our  itinerant  general  superintendency."  There  I  am  putting 
in  the  ipsissima  verba  of  the  original  restrictive  rule  that  has 
been  in  the  Discipline  of  the  two  Churches  since  1808. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  hope  the  amendment  offered  by  Bishop  Mou- 
zon will  not  carry.  The  restrictive  rule  as  it  is  here  protects 
absolutely  an  itinerant  general  superintendency.  Speaking  for 
myself  only,  I  do  not  believe  we  ought  to  bind  a  Church 
of  to-morrow  to  a  plan  of  superintendency  that  was  in 
vogue  more  than  a  century  ago.  So  you  want  to  bind  a 
Church  to  a  body  of  death  after  the  manner  suggested  by  Bishop 
Mouzon?  If  you  write  in  those  words,  that  is  what  you  do.  If 
you  pass  this  amendment,  any  time  you  want  to  adopt  any  leg- 
islation affecting  the  matter  of  the  episcopal  supervision,  some- 
body will  say  that  is  not  according  to  the  Asburian  type.  It 
means  the  binding  of  the  Church  to  the  type  of  episcopacy 
adapted  to  the  Church  when  it  consisted  of  a  few  thousand  mem- 
bers on  the  Atlantic  Seaboard,  but  not  adapted  to  the  needs  of  a 
great  world  Church  with  more  than  6,000,000  membership.  I, 
therefore,  hope  the  amendment  of  Bishop  Mouzon  will  not  carry. 

Bishop  Hoss:  I  profoundly  regret  to  differ  from  my  friend 
Dr.  Blake.  I  have  not  had  the  pleasure  of  hearing  most  of  his 
speeches,  but  I  have  heard  uniformly  good  opinions  of  him, 
and  I  dislike  to  come  in  at  this  late  hour  in  the  campaign  and 
protest  against  any  of  his  views.  But  I  do  believe  that  our 
episcopacy  is  now  and  has  ever  been  right  and  proper,  and  for 
myself  I  do  not  care  a  copper  cent  for  any  sort  of  episcopacy 
unless  it  is  guarded  and  protected  by  the  Constitution.  What 
is  the  use  of  having  a  Constitution  at  all  if  you  do  not  propose 
to  bind  the  Church  of  to-morrow.  That  is  just  exactly  what 
we  propose  to  do.  That  is  the  very  essence  of  the  conflict  that 
Joshua  Soule  precipitated,  and  he  refused  to  be  ordained  a 
bishop  except  according  to  that  restrictive  rule.  That  was  ex- 
actly the  position  of  William  McKendree,  and  he  was  the  great- 
est man  we  had  in  the  early  days.  He  was  out  in  the  country 
when  those  resolutions  were  passed  in  the  General  Conference 


104    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

of  1820,  and  when  he  got  back  on  Monday  morning  and  heard 
what  had  taken  place  he  rose  and  said :  "You  have  done  a  thing 
that  is  unconstitutional,  and  I  must  serve  notice  upon  you  that 
I  will  not  obey  it."  They  would  have  run  over  Soule  by  him- 
self, because  he  was  not  a  popular  man,  and  was  not  so  much 
in  favor ;  but  they  couldn't  run  over  William  McKendree,  the 
best-loved  man  in  the  Church,  and  when  McKendree  came  with 
that  strong  backing  he  carried  the  Church  with  him.  He  didn't 
do  it  all  at  once.  Three  General  Conferences  passed  before  it 
was  finally,  and  I  had  hoped  forever,  done  away  with.  If  we 
want  episcopacy  at  all — and  about  that  there  seems  to  be  some 
doubt — but  if  we  want  episcopacy  at  all,  it  is  the  Methodist 
episcopacy  patterned  after  the  ancient  type.  I  don't  object  to 
a  thing  because  it  is  the  Asburian  type.  I  don't  think  all  wis- 
dom began  or  ended  with  him.  He  was  not  the  only  man  in  his 
day.  The  General  Conference  away  back  there  dated  this  Con- 
stitution and  considered  the  question  of  some  change  in  the 
plan  of  our  itinerant  general  superintendency,  and  it  was  just 
before  the  Constitution  was  adopted  that  they  refused  to  pass 
some  changes  as  to  the  authority  and  power.  I  am  not  afraid 
of  every  brother  who  pops  up  to  defend  something.  I  am 
afraid  of  the  brother  who  is  going  about  saying  what  he  is 
going  to  do — you  will  have  members  everywhere  popping  up  and 
saying  that  it  is  not  any  special  episcopacy  we  are  protecting, 
it  is  just  an  itinerant  general  superintendency.  I  will  fight  that 
to  the  bitter  end.  1  cannot  fight  it  with  my  tongue  as  vigorously 
as  I  could;  but  I  can  fight  it  with  my  pen,  and  I  will  fight  it 
on  the  platform  and  in  the  papers  of  the  Church.  Just  now  it 
is  going  all  around  our  Church,  and  if  you  want  to  see  this  thing 
defeated,  just  make  that  change.  The  body  of  the  people  in 
our  Church  believe  in  the  sort  of  episcopacy  we  have  had,  and 
they  will  vote  down  this  thing  and  bury  it  beyond  the  possi- 
bility of  resurrection. 

Bishop  Leete:  Personally  I  think  it  is  rather  remarkable  that 
this  paragraph  comes  from  the  source  from  which  it  does  come. 
I  wish  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  this  preservation  of  the 
restrictive  rule,  under  the  circumstances,  if  we  are  going  to  have 
six  Regional  Conferences  having  the  power  to  elect  their  own 
bishops  and  yet  trim  them  down  in  their  episcopacy,  there  is  no 
itinerant  general  superintendency,  and  it  is  really  a  joke  to 
preserve  in  the  legislation  of  the  Church  a  very  carefully  worded 
restrictive  rule  concerning  something  that  is  gone.  As  to  the 
matter  of  an  episcopacy,  I  rather  agree  with  Bishop  Hoss.  It 
is  not  an  episcopacy  so  indefinite  as  to  be  particularized  by  an 
expression  of  that  kind  we  need,  but  an  episcopacy  capable  of 
being  adapted  to  any  condition  of  emergency.  I  am  on  both 
sides  of  this  question.   I  have  no  more  episcopal  feeling  than  I  had 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


105 


six  years  ago.  I  am  perfectly  willing  that  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America 
should  have  any  kind  of  an  episcopacy  it  wishes,  so  far  as  I  am 
personally  concerned.  I  think  the  Church  should  absolutely  di- 
rect the  character  and  conduct  of  the  man  it  desires  to  have  in 
charge  of  the  executive  branch  of  its  government.  I  am  per- 
fectly willing  to  submit  absolutely  to  what  the  members  of  Meth- 
odism desire  with  reference  to  the  episcopacy.  I  say  that  to 
clear  my  own  attitude;  but  I  do  believe  this,  that  if  there  is  to 
be  any  episcopacy  more  than  a  mere — I  would  hardly  say  glori- 
fied superintendency — if  there  is  to  be  any  episcopacy  worthy 
of  the  name  episcopacy,  I  do  believe  that  there  ought  to  be  a 
very  careful  indication  in  the  Constitution  of  the  kind  of  epis- 
copacy we  are  going  to  have.  I  really  believe  that  is  necessary 
for  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of  the  office  in  any  way  that  will 
be  satisfactory  to  the  mind  of  the  Church.  Personally  I  deplore 
the  whole  Regional  plan.  I  have  already  said  that.  I  may  be 
unparliamentary  in  saying  that,  but  the  thing  I  hoped  in  my 
heart  was  that  Methodism  would  get  about  to  what  the  Roman 
and  Anglican  Churches  have  arrived  at  a  long  time  ago,  a  kind 
of  Church  government  that  would  be  in  harmony  with  the  civil 
divisions  of  the  country.  And  one  reason  why  I  am  voting  as 
I  have  on  this  matter  of  the  regions  is  that  I  would  like  to  see 
us  rather  on  the  basis  of  State  division.  I  think  the  State  is 
the  true  unit  of  local  autonomy.  I  will  say  to  Brother  Lamar 
that  my  idea  was  just  as  he  proposed,  to  give  the  legislative 
power  to  the  State  Conference  organization.  I  know  in  my 
experience  I  have  found  myself  very  much  lacking  in  the  power 
to  localize  many  interests  in  the  State — 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Your  time  is  up. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  Let  me  make  my  meaning  and  my  purpose 
entirely  clear.  I  am  not  concerned  about  the  episcopacy  except 
as  the  episcopacy  shall  render  the  largest  possible  service  to  the 
Church.  I  shall  be  entirely  frank  to  say  that  my  deepest  con- 
cern is  that  I  myself,  since  I  chance  to  be  one  of  the  general 
superintendents  of  my  Church,  shall  be  able  to  serve  my  Church 
to  the  largest  and  fullest  extent  of  my  ability.  Episcopacy  did 
not  make  the  bishop;  the  bishop  made  episcopacy.  That  is 
historically  true.  That  is  true  of  the  early  times  of  Christianity. 
That  is  true  of  Methodism.  The  bishops  made  episcopacy,  and 
not  episcopacy  the  bishops.  John  Wesley  was,  as  he  himself 
says,  a  scriptural  episcopos.  Francis  Asbury  was  as  truly  a 
bishop  before  the  hands  of  Thomas  Coke  were  laid  on  his  head  as 
afterwards.  They  were  bishops  and  made  the  episcopacy,  and 
I  believe  the  only  men  who  can  seriously  damage  the  episcopacy 
are  the  bishops  themselves.  I  suppose  my  attitude  toward  the 
episcopacy  is  plain,  although  my  good  friend  Dr.  Blake  is  of 


106    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

opinion  that  at  least  in  some  quarters  at  some  time  it  has  been 
a  body  of  death.  Now,  an  itinerant  general  superintendency 
is  such  a  general  sort  of  phrase  that  it  can  mean  almost  any- 
thing or  almost  nothing  at  all.  "The  plan  of  our  itinerant  gen- 
eral superintendency" — that  phrase  as  here  used  in  the  making 
of  this  Constitution  does  not  safeguard,  does  not  perpetuate 
in  the  Church  what  you  have  been  pleased  to  call  the  As- 
burian  type  of  itinerant  general  superintendency;  but  it  is  the 
plan  that  we  are  here  preparing  for  that  this  restrictive  rule 
will  protect,  and  that  is  the  reason  I  want  to  put  it  in  here — not 
that  we  are  trying  to  bring  here  into  the  Church  a  sort  of  gen- 
eral superintendency  a  hundred  years  old ;  but  we  are  modi- 
fying that  in  the  building  of  the  Constitution,  and  it  is  desired 
that  this  historic  restrictive  rule  in  the  identical  language  used 
by  our  fathers,  a  rule  which  has  served  so  great  a  purpose  in 
protecting  the  Constitution  of  the  Church,  should  stand  just 
as  it  is  to  protect  the  Constitution  that  we  are  here  building. 
I  sincerely  hope  that  we  shall  not  in  the  making  of  this  Con- 
stitution provide  for  anything  like  a  diocesan  episcopacy.  We 
desire  in  the  Church  which,  please  God,  we  shall  build  some  day 
to  continue  to  have  itinerant  general  superintendency,  and  this 
is  what  I  am  here  endeavoring  to  secure. 

Bishop  Cooke:  I  think  we  can  settle  this  if  we  think  that 
the  matter  is  one  of  definition.  Many  are  led  astray  for  the 
lack  of  definition,  and  an  exact  definition  will  settle  this.  There 
are  two  things  in  this  paragraph :  First,  the  Fathers  established 
an  episcopacy;  and  then  the  second  part  declares  the  kind  of 
episcopacy.  Now  the  plan  of  our  superintendency  did  not 
mean  absolutely  that  the  bishop  should  travel  throughout  the 
entire  Church.  That  was  not  the  idea  at  all.  The  episcopacy 
there  established  was  a  plan  of  episcopacy  over  against  another 
kind  of  episcopacy  with  which  they  were  familiar.  It  was 
another  kind  of  episcopacy.  There  was  all  about  them  a  Ro- 
man episcopacy,  a  Greek  episcopacy,  and  an  Anglican  episco- 
pacy just  growing  out  of  revolution.  It  was  against  that  kind 
of  an  episcopacy  that  the  Fathers  instituted  this  other  kind ; 
not  a  diocesan  episcopacy,  not  stationary,  but  a  traveling  epis- 
copacy. It  does  not  mean  that  the  bishop  should  travel  through- 
out the  connection.  That  was  not  the  idea,  and  the  proof  of  that 
is  this:  I  think  it  was  between  1820  and  1828  when  the  bishops 
divided  the  Church  into  districts.  Remember  that — they  di- 
vided the  Church  into  districts,  and  there  were  bishops  in  the 
North  who  never  went  South  for  years  and  years.  And  they 
never  seem  to  have  considered  that  they  were  violating  the 
Constitution  of  the  Church  when  they  divided  the  Church  into 
districts.  The  fact  is,  Bishop  George  had  the  idea  that  he  was 
the  sole  bishop  in  his  district,  and  when  the  first  Bishops'  Meet- 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


ing  was  held  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia  'and  Bishop  Mc- 
Kendree  and  Bishop  Soule  came  up  to  that  first  meeting,  Bishop 
George  had  the  idea  that  he  was  the  sole  bishop  in  his  district 
and  that  no  other  bishop  had  a  right  to  come  into  his  district, 
and  he  would  not  recognize  Bishops  McKendree  and  Soule — 

Bishop  Hoss:  I  think  you  have  that  reversed. 

Bishop  Cooke :  McKendree  was  about  to  bring  charges  against 
Bishop  George  because  Bishop  George  would  not  recognize 
him,  and  Bishop  McKendree  was  about  to  bring  charges  against 
Bishop  George  on  the  ground  that  he  was  restricting  the  epis- 
copacy. 

Bishop  Hoss :  Bishop  McKendree  never  presented  the  charges. 

Bishop  Cooke:  Bishop  McKendree's  charge  was  that  this  plan 
does  not  mean  that  the  bishop  must  travel  throughout  the  whole 
connection  in  order  for  there  to  be  a  general  superintendency. 
It  can  be  in  districts.  Therefore,  it  is  simply  a  mere  matter 
of  definition  of  what  is  meant  by  "plan."  The  plan  is  "epis- 
copacy" over  against  diocesan  episcopacy.  It  does  not  mean 
that  a  bishop  cannot  travel  through  the  Church,  and  it  does 
rot  prohibit  him  from  leaving  his  district. 

David  G.  Downey:  Bishop  Mouzon  answered  the  question 
that  was  in  my  mind  as  to  just  what  plan  of  episcopacy  it  was 
designed  to  protect  by  this  restrictive  rule. 

H.  M.  Du  Bose:  Would  you  permit  me  to  make  a  motion 
touching  this  matter?  I  move  that  the  time  be  extended  until 
we  dispose  of  this  question. 

Several  Voices:  No. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  I  hear  no  second  to  the 
motion,  and  Dr.  Downey  has  the  floor. 

David  G.  Downey:  Bishop  Mouzon  has  said  that  it  is  the 
plan  that  we  are  now  preparing  that  he  wishes  to  protect. 
Then  he  says  he  does  not  wish  a  diocesan  episcopacy.  We  are 
in  danger,  by  adopting  this  phrase,  of  doing  just  the  thing  that 
Bishop  Mouzon  and  many  of  us  desire  not  to  do,  and  that  is  to 
rrjake  a  diocesan  episcopacy,  because  we  have  so  hedged  the 
episcopacy  about  by  what  we  have  tentatively  adopted  that  if 
we  tie  this  up  to  a  plan,  and  say  this  plan  shall  not  be  changed, 
we  are  in  a  poor  predicament.  We  have  already  agreed  in  re- 
gard to  the  powers  of  the  General  Conference  after  their  elec- 
tion and  have  provided  further  that  a  bishop  shall  be  assigned 
lr*  a  Regional  Jurisdiction  to  the  Regional  Jurisdiction  by 
which  he  was  elected  or  to  the  Central  Conference  Jurisdiction 
for  which  he  was  elected,  but  that  any  bishop  may  be  assigned 
to  any  Annual  Conference  for  presidential  supervision  if  a 
majority  of  the  resident  bishops  of  the  Jurisdiction  to  which 
he  is  assigned  concur  in  said  assignment;  and  provided  still 
further  that  the  General  Conference  may  assign  a  bishop  to 


io8    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

residence  within  any  Jurisdiction  with  the  consent  of  the  dele- 
gates of  the  Jurisdictions  from  which  the  bishop  is  to  be  taken 
and  to  which  he  to  be  assigned.  That  pretty  well  confines  him, 
and  now  your  proposition  is  to  confine  him  still  more  closely 
by  saying  that  "our  plan  of  itinerant  general  superintendency 
shall  never  be  changed."  I  don't  think  we  want  to  do  that  sort 
of  a  thing. 

Charles  A.  Pollock :  I  move  the  previous  question. 
The  motion  was  seconded. 
Several  Voices :  No,  no,  no. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Wait  a  minute.  You  must 
vote  as  a  body.  For  experts  such  as  this  body  is  supposed  to 
be,  we  are  not  very  strict  on  parliamentary  law. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  motion  for  the  previous  question  was 
lost  by  19  to  21  on  a  rising  vote. 

John  M.  Moore:  I  move  that  this  subsection,  with  the  pro- 
posed amendment,  be  recommitted  to  the  committee,  that  they 
may  bring  in  some  statement  in  regard  to  it. 

The  motion  was  seconded. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  hope  it  will  not  be  recommitted.  We  ought 
to  decide  this  thing  here  and  now  one  way  or  the  other.  It  is 
too  late  to  recommit. 

C.  M.  Bishop :  Are  you  content  with  the  exact  language  as 
given  here,  Dr.  Blake? 

Edgar  Blake :  Yes. 

John  M.  Moore:  The  Committee  perhaps  would  be  able  to 
redraft  that  section  so  as  to  protect  the  ideas  of  both  sides, 
and  it  seems  to  me  if  they  can  do  that  it  should  be  done.  They 
can  do  that  in  the  interim,  and  if  they  cannot  they  can  bring 
it  back. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  motion  to  recommit  was  lost. 

Bishop  Hoss  took  the  chair  as  presiding  officer. 

Bishop  Denny :  I  have  no  argument  to  make  in  favor  of  the 
episcopacy.  I  could  not  undertake  that,  but  I  simply  want  to 
call  attention  to  some  of  the  points  that  occur  to  me  as  involved 
in  this  proposed  committee's  report.  All  that  you  do,  if  you 
adopt  this,  is  to  have  the  name  Bishop,  and  you  also  say  that 
he  shall  have  certain  functions  known  as  superintending  func- 
tions. He  can  be  no  more  than  a  moderator  if  the  majority  of 
the  General  Conference  desires  to  make  him  a  moderator.  Of 
course  he  has  to  travel  some,  and  travel  means  superintending. 
If  you  want  that  kind  of  an  episcopacy  and  the  Church  wants 
it,  the  Church  has  the  right  to  have  it,  but  he  need  not  be  given 
any  power  of  appointment.  This  would  enable  the  majority 
of  the  General  Conference  to  take  that  out  of  his  hands.  He 
need  not  be  given  any  power  of  ordination.  This  would  give 
the  majority  of  the  General  Conference  the  power  to  take  that 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


109 


out  of  his  hands.  That  is  not  necessarily  a  part  of  superintend- 
ency.  All  that  he  might  have  would  be  the  power  to  travel  around 
and  act  as  a  moderator.  There  is  practically  left  to  him  not  a 
solitary  right  that  is  known  as  an  episcopal  right.  The  episco- 
pacy will  be  eviscerated. 

Bishop  Hamilton:  I  move  that  we  adjourn  with  Bishop  Den- 
ny on  the  floor. 

A.  F.  Watkins :  I  have  moved,  and  it  was  seconded,  that  the 
time  be  extended  until  the  discussion  shall  be  concluded,  and 
it  was  not  in  order  to  move  for  an  adjournment. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  am  very  sure  that  no  one  can  speak 
at  this  particular  moment  under  the  conditions  alnd  receive 
proper  and  favorable  hearing,  and  I  do  not  think  Bishop  Denny 
was  having  the  kind  of  consideration  to  which  he  is  entitled, 
and  as  far  as  that  is  concerned 'which  nobody  could  get  at  this 
time.  [A  procession  of  soldiers  was  passing  and  there  was 
considerable  disturbance.]  I  think  the  proper  course  for  us  is 
to  adjourn  with  Bishop  Denny  on  the  floor  and  give  him  a 
proper  hearing  when  we  reconvene. 

The  motion  was  put  and  carried. 

Secretary  Thomas:  Before  the  motion  to  adjourn  is  put  I 
want  to  announce  that  I  have  received  a  letter  from  Mr.  Rule, 
Commissioner,  saying  it  is  impossible  for  him  to  attend  on  ac- 
count of  illness  in  his  family.  There  is  also  a  letter  from 
Bishop  Candler  saying  that  he  cannot  be  here. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  A  requisite  number  of  members  fof  the 
Southern  Commission  desire  separate  meetings  of  the  Com- 
mission this  afternoon  at  three  o'clock  if  we  may  have  them. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  How  long  do  you  suppose 
we  should  need,  so  that  we  can  give  notice  to  the  members  ? 

Bishop  Mouzon:  I  will  explain  the  purpose  of  this  meeting, 
so  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  may  have  a  meeting 
of  their  Commissioners  and  discuss  the  items.  It  is  desired 
that  we  should  take  up  the  matters  of  the  Regional  Confer- 
ences on  which  we  had  tentatively  voted,  so  that  we  can  have 
an  official  final  vote  and  we  would  like  to  meet  at  three  o'clock 
or  as  soon  as  we  get  through. 

John  F.  Goucher:  Time  is  so  very  valuable,  mjight  not  these 
separate  sessions  be  held  to-night? 

Bishop  Mouzon :  I  desire  to  be  courteous ;  but  it  is  the  de- 
sire of  a  number  of  us  that  as  soon  as  we  have  tentatively 
completed  each  of  these  reports  we  should  then  go  apart  and 
pass  upon  that  completed  part  officially  and  finally,  otherwise 
we  may  be  wasting  a  great  deal  of  time. 

E.  B.  Chappell :  Aren't  we  already  adjourned? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Hoss)  :  We  are  giving  notices,  after 
which  I  will  take  the  vote  and  we  will  adjourn. 


no    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


John  F.  Goucher:  What  else  is  there  to  consider?  It  seems 
to  me  we  might  consider  the  Judicial  Council  and  some  other 
things  and  have  separate  meetings  at  night.  We  have  busi- 
ness enough  to  keep  us  occupied  during  the  day- 
Edgar  Blake :  I  sincerely  hope  we  will  not  hold  any  separate 
sessions  for  final  action  on  any  particular  plan. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Hoss)  :  Announcements  for  sepa- 
rate sessions  have  been  made. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  If  the  motion  was  made  and  carried  for 
an  adjournment,  the  announcement  I  made  was  out  of  order. 
I  had  no  authority  to  make  such  an  announcement ;  and  certainly, 
since  I  have  heard  from  Dr.  Blake  and  others  and  they  do  not 
wish  to  have  separate  sessions,  it  would  be  a  discourtesy  to 
insist  on  it,  so  I  withdraw  the  announcement. 

Bishop  McDowell :  The  Commission  did  vote  to  adjourn  with 
Bishop  Denny  on  the  floor. 

The  hymn,  "O  Thou  God  of  my  salvation,"  was  sung,  the 
benediction  was  pronounced  by  Dr.  Thomas,  and  the  Commis- 
sion then  adjourned. 

Afternoon  Session. 

The  Joint  Commission  was  called  to  order  by  Bishop  Collins 
Denny  at  three  o'clock. 

Devotional  exercises  were  conducted  by  Mr.  Alexander  Simp- 
son, Jr. 

The  hymn,  'Abide  with  Me,"  was  sung. 

Mr.  Simpson  read  the  fourteenth  chapter  of  John. 

Prayer  was  offered  by  Dr.  A.  J.  Lamar. 

The  hymn,  "O  for  a  heart  to  praise  my  God,"  was  sung. 

The  roll  was  called  and  the  following  were  found  present: 
Bishops  E.  E.  Hoss,  Collins  Denny,  E.  D.  Mouzon,  W.  B.  Mur- 
rah,  Earl  Cranston,  J.  W.  Hamilton,  W.  F.  McDowell,  F.  D. 
Leete,  R.  J.  Cooke.  Ministers:  F.  M.  Thomas,  W.  J.  Young, 
J.  M.  Moore,  C.  M.  Bishop,  E.  B.  Chappell,  T.  N.  Ivey,  A.  F. 
Watkins,  H.  M.  Du  Bose,  W.  N.  Ainsworth,  A.  J.  Lamar,  Ed- 
gar Blake,  D.  G.  Downey,  J.  F.  Goucher,  R.  E.  Jones,  A.  J. 
Nast,  Frank  Neff,  E.  M.  Randall,  C.  B.  Spencer,  J.  W.  Van 
Cleve,  J.  J.  Wallace.  Laymen :  M.  L.  Walton,  H.  N.  Snider, 
P.  D.  Maddin,  R.  S.  Hver,  J.  R.  Reynolds,  R.  E.  Blackwell, 
J.  R.  Pepper,  E.  C.  Reeves,  H.  H.  White,  E.  W.  Hines,  G.  W. 
Brown,  A.  W.  Harris  C.  W.  Kinne,  I.  G.  Penn,  I.  E.  Rob- 
inson, H.  W.  Rogers,  Alexander  Simpson,  Jr.,  Rolla  V.  Watt,  J. 
R.  Joy,  C.  A.  Pollock.   Rev.  C.  M.  Stuart,  alternate. 

The  minutes  of  the  last  session  were  read,  corrected,  and 
approved. 

Bishop  Cranston  took  the  chair  as  presiding  officer. 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


in 


The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  I  believe  Bishop  Denny 
had  the  floor  when  we  adjourned. 

Bishop  Denny:  This  is  a  question  of  what  kind  of  an  episco- 
pacy the  Commission  desires  to  recommend  to  the  two  Church- 
es. My  sole  purpose  in  calling  your  attention  to  the  matter  at 
all  is  not  to  advocate  any  definite  kind  of  episcopacy,  but  to  call 
your  attention  to  what  is  involved  in  the  motion  submitted  by 
the  Committee.  There  was  quite  a  debate  on  the  responsibility 
of  the  bishops  to  pass  on  a  legal  question  in  the  Annual  Con- 
ference, and  it  was  the  consensus  of  opinion  at  that  time  that 
such  responsibility  was  solely  in  the  hands  of  a  majority  of 
our  General  Conference,  so  that  that  question,  so  far  as  our 
side  of  the  Commission  is  concerned,  is  not  involved.  That 
would  also  remain  in  the  keeping  of  a  majority  of  the  General 
Conference,  and  could  be  determined  at  any  time  that  such  a 
majority  desired  to  do  so.  There  is  some  difference  of  opinion 
amongst  us  about  that,  but  I  give  the  consensus  of  opinion. 
On  the  other  hand,  this  proposal  of  the  Committee  on  Confer- 
ences really  means  the  evisceration  of  Methodist  episcopacy 
as  we  understand  it.  It  would  leave  in  the  hands  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  the  determination  of  the  term  of  service.  The 
General  Conference  could  determine,  for  instance,  that  a  man 
elected  to  the  episcopacy  should  hold  the  office  for  a  limited 
time,  four  years.  It  would  leave  in  the  hands  of  a  majority 
of  the  General  Conference,  and  I  need  not  repeat  that  phrase 
after  this,  to  determine  what  should  be  the  bond  of  unity  in 
the  Church.  Heretofore  one  of  the  strongest  features  of  the 
episcopacy  has  been  the  bond  of  unity  and  connectionalism  in 
the  Church.  Now,  if  we  are  to  retain  a  connectional  system, 
there  must  be  somewhere  a  bond  of  unity;  and  if  it  be  not 
lodged  in  the  episcopacy  it  must  be  lodged  somewhere  else. 
So  it  leaves  it  to  the  General  Conference  to  determine  where 
that  bond  of  unity  is  to  be  found.  The  bishops  would  no 
longer  have  the  right  constitutionally  to  make  any  appointments. 
That  could  be  done  either  by  a  committee  of  the  Annual  Con- 
ference, as  the  Methodist  Protestants  now  have  it,  or  it  could 
be  done  in  any  other  form  that  the  General  Conference  might 
determine.  It  can  take  away  from  the  episcopacy  the  responsi- 
bility for  ordination,  because  that  is  not  a  function  of  epis- 
copal superintendency.  Generally  speaking,  it  would  leave  us  an 
utterly  empty  episcopacy  with  nothing  but  the  name,  an  episco- 
pacy shorn  of  all  its  functions.  Is  that  what  this  Commission 
wants  to  recommend  to  the  General  Conference?  Have  we 
found  that  our  episcopacy,  as  at  present  and  from  the  begin- 
ning constituted,  has  become  so  outworn  and  so  useless  by 
lack  of  leadership  and  of  potentialities  for  the  good  of  the 
Church  that  it  is  best  now  fundamentally  to  make  such  a  change 


112    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

as  the  Committee  proposes  to  make?  If  that  be  your  position, 
you  will  support  the  recommendation  of  the  Committee.  If 
you  are  satisfied  that  there  is  still  in  the  Methodist  episcopacy, 
as  it  has  existed  among  us  since  1808,  indeed  since  1784,  some- 
thing of  value  to  the  Church,  then  the  motion  made  by  Bishop 
Mouzon  will  prevail.  As  a  matter  of  course,  I  cannot  argue 
such  a  question  within  so  short  a  time.  Then  the  delicacies  of  the 
situation  need  to  be  considered.  I  can  go  this  far,  that  up  to 
about  eight  years  ago  the  form  of  Methodist  episcopacy  that  had 
prevailed  had  won  my  approbation,  and  that  too  without  any 
expectation  that  its  responsibilities  would  ever  be  laid  upon  me. 
I  had  been  accustomed  to  its  leadership  in  this  work.  It  is  diffi- 
cult to  say  what  would  be  left  in  the  Constitution  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  if  this  proposal  of  the  Committee  should 
be  adopted.  The  term  ''itinerant  superintendency"  is  in  itself 
not  a  strictly  definite  term,  and  it  could  and  it  might  be  cut  down 
to  such  a  point  that  I  believe  I  am  justified  in  the  use  of  the  term 
"eviscerated."  Rather  than  adopt  the  recommendation  of  the  com- 
mittee it  would  be  better  to  go  over  wholly  and  at  once  to  the 
congregational  system.  Nobody  can  discuss  such  a  question  as 
this  with  any  fullness  in  five  minutes,  and  I  shall  not  therefore 
attempt  to  say  anything  more. 

John  F.  Goucher:  I  move  that  Bishop  Denny's  time  be  ex- 
tended. 

Bishop  Denny :  No,  thank  you ;  I  am  not  willing  to  create  such 
a  precedent. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  I  am  not  in  favor  of  the  amendment  that 
has  been  proposed.  The  subsection  says  "the  plan  of  our  general 
superintendency."  There  will  be  two  constructions  possible. 
It  will  be  possible  to  go  back  to  the  original  language,  which 
came  regularly  down  from  1808,  and  say  that  the  plan  of  su- 
perintendency must  be  that  which  then  prevailed,  because  the 
same  language  has  been  repeatedly  put  in  the  Constitution. 
The  only  other  construction  would  be  to  say  that  it  is  the 
plan  of  episcopacy  which  we  now  set  for  the  reorganized 
Church.  If  you  take  up  this  proposition,  you  will  find  that  the 
functions  of  that  episcopacy  are  yet  to  be  defined  by  the  Gen- 
eral Conference.  If  the  plan  is  to  be  placed  under  the  protection 
of  a  constitutional  provision,  it  gives  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence the  power  to  adopt  functions  for  the  episcopacy  which 
shall  immediately  become  constitutional.  I  don't  think  we  want 
to  do  that. 

Bishop  Mouzon:  Repeat  that. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  If  you  say  that  the  plan  of  our  itinerant 
general  superintendency  means  the  plan  we  now  adopt,  it 
will  be  that  plan  which  will  be  adopted  by  the  General  Con- 
ference under  the  authority  given  in  this  instrument  to  fix  the 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


ii3 


duties  of  the  episcopal  office.  The  functions  and  duties  of 
the  episcopacy  are  to  be  fixed  by  the  General  Conference  ac- 
cording to  the  proposed  draft. 

Bishop  Cooke:  Is  that  not  the  statutory  law  now? 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  That  the  duties?  If  that  be  the  case,  it 
does  not  become  a  part  of  the  plan  of  our  general  superintend- 
ency,  and  the  result  is  we  have  no  plan  unless  we  go  back — 

Bishop  Mouzon:  I  will  beg  pardon,  it  will  be  fixed,  not  by 
the  General  Conference  alone,  but  by  the  General  Conference 
and  the  Annual  Conferences. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  It  is  not  so  provided  in  this  instrument. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  This  instrument  has  to  go  to  our  General 
Conferences  and  to  our  Annual  Conferences  before  it  can  be 
adopted. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  But  this  instrument  does  not  fix  the  func- 
tions of  the  bishops.  It  provides  for  the  bishops,  but  gives  us 
no  plans.  There  must  either  be  a  plan  adopted  which  is  not 
yet  before  us,  or  we  fall  back  to  the  original  plan  which  is 
handed  down  to  us  by  the  continued  use  of  those  words.  That 
is  what  I  said  at  the  beginning.  It  is  either  the  original  plan 
or  one  yet  to  be  adopted.  No  plan  is  put  down  in  this  instru- 
ment. That  plan  itself  will  not  become  a  part  of  the  Constitu- 
tion by  the  adoption  of  this  instrument.  It  is  provided  that  the 
General  Conference  will  do  those  things — "define  the  privileges, 
powers,  and  duties  of  the  episcopacy."  That  is  one  of  the 
functions  of  the  General  Conference.  That  makes  it  statu- 
tory. We  have  found  that  the  word  "plan"  is  so  indefinite,  as 
Dr.  Blake  said  this  forenoon,  that  whenever  you  touch  the 
episcopacy  at  any  point  with  an  attempt  to  regulate  or  manage 
it  by  the  central  authority  of  the  Church  in  the  General  Con- 
ference, immiediately  objections  come  in  that  the  thing  you 
cannot  touch  is  the  "plan  of  our  itinerant  general  superintend- 
ency" ;  and  while  that  original  plan  has  been  modified  by  the 
bishops  themselves  to  no  inconsiderable  extent,  they  have  stead- 
ily held  to  the  inability  of  the  General  Conference  to  modify  it, 
and  the  power  to  amend  the  Constitution  has  been  held  by  many 
bishops  to  belong  to  themselves  and  not  to  inhere  in  the  General 
Conference.  I  think  we  should  prevent  just  that  sort  of  thing. 
This  does  give  a  specific  definition.  There  shall  be,  in  the  first 
place,  a  superintendency.  Whatever  belongs  to  superintend- 
ing is  there  constitutionally.  It  shall  also  be  a  general  superintend- 
ency. You  have  a  connectional  bond  fixed  by  that  one  fact; 
and  however  it  may  be  divided  up  in  its  territorial  jurisdiction 
as  a  whole,  it  remains  a  general  superintendency.  It  is  itiner- 
ant, it  may  be  used  anywhere  that  the  Church  itself  desires  to 
use  it;  and  that  is  much  more  specific  than  if  you  put  in  that 
8 


H4   Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

word  "plan,"  which  is  so  general  that  it  leaves  the  gates  so 
wide  open  that  you  can  drive  anything  through  them  you  like. 

Bishop  Mouzon:  The  objection  is  raised  that  the  instrument 
which  we  are  now  perfecting  hasn't  any  plan  for  itinerant 
general  superintendency,  but  merely  provides  for  an  itinerant 
general  superintendency.  The  objection  is  also  made  that,  ac- 
cording to  the  Constitution  which  we  are  here  writing,  the 
General  Conference  may  at  any  time  by  a  majority  vote  de- 
fine and  fix  the  privileges,  powers,  and  duties  of  the 
episcopacy.  We  have  done  no  such  foolish  thing  as  that.  We 
have  written  no  such  foolish  thing  as  that  in  the  Constitution. 
It  is  definitely  said  that,  subject  to  the  restrictions  and  limita- 
tions of  this  Constitution,  the  General  Conference  shall  define 
and  fix  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  episcopacy.  Subject  to 
the  limitations  and  restrictions  of  this  Constitution,  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  can  do  anything. 

Joseph  W.  Van  Cleve:  May  I  ask  you  a  question? 

Bishop  Mouzon :  Certainly. 

Joseph  W.  Van  Cleve :  Can  you  show  me  any  place  in  this 
instrument  where  there  is  any  plan  or  anything  affecting  the 
powers  and  privileges  of  the  episcopacy  provided  in  the  Con- 
stitution ? 

Bishop  Mouzon:  I  am  about  to  show  the  kind  of  episcopacy 
that  the  plan  has  in  mind.  I  now  call  attention  once  more  to 
the  error  we  fall  into  when  we  hold  that  the  General  Con- 
ference by  a  majority  vote  can  define  and  fix  the  powers  and 
privileges  of  the  episcopacy.  Certainly  we  never  had  that  in 
mind  at  all.  It  is  subject  to  the  limitations  and  restrictions  of 
this  Constitution.  They  can  do  it  by  constitutional  methods 
and  not  by  unconstitutional  methods ;  and  we  are  not  per- 
mitted to  enter  into  any  organization  where  the  powers  and 
duties  of  the  episcopacy,  by  a  mere  majority  vote,  can  be  de- 
fined or  fixed  or  limited  or  done  away  with.  I  think  that  is 
perfectly  evident,  now  that  your  attention  is  called  to  it.  What 
sort  of  an  episcopacy  are  we  providing  for  here?  We  are  pro- 
viding for  an  itinerant  general  superintendency — not,  as  some 
of  our  brethren  would  have  it,  a  diocesan  episcopacy  or  a  semi- 
diocesan  episcopacy.  Some  of  us  have  held  that  position  all 
the  way  through,  that  we  should  avoid  breaking  the  Church 
into  a  lot  of  little  Churches.  Do  you  hear  that  remark?  We 
are  not  thinking  of  breaking  the  Church  up  into  little  Churches ; 
and  at  the  proper  time  I  shall  be  ready  to  amend  Article  VII., 
on  page  10,  by  eliminating  the  words  "if  a  majority  of  the 
resident  bishops  of  the  jurisdiction  to  which  he  is  assigned 
shall  concur  in  said  assignment."  I  shall  not  read  it  all,  it 
is  too  long. 

Bishop  McDowell:  We  understand  it. 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


115 


Bishop  Mouzon :  This  may  hark  back  somewhat  to  the  days 
of  Asbury,  but  it  is  impossible  to  obliterate  history.  What  is 
written  is  written.  This  is  not  an  Asburian  episcopacy,  if  you 
please,  but  it  is  a  kind  of  episcopacy  that  we  begin  with.  It 
is  the  episcopacy  that  we  now  have.  If  you  begin  to  define, 
you  will  have  to  define  and  go  back  and  define  something  be- 
hind that,  and  there  will  be  no  end  of  the  process  of  defining; 
but  the  kind  of  episcopacy  that  is  here  spoken  of  is  the  epis- 
copacy that  we  now  have,  that  we  will  enter  into  the  Church 
with.  That  is  the  kind  of  episcopacy  we  shall  have.  It  will 
mean  just  as  much  to  us  to-day  as  the  words  meant  to  Joshua 
Soule  and  others  who  were  interested  in  this  matter  in  his  day, 
and  not  in  a  diocesan  episcopacy  in  the  beginning. 

Bishop  McDowell:  I  do  not  rise  particularly  to  discuss  the 
exact  form  of  this  proposed  amendment  or  to  defend  a  form 
proposed  by  the  Committee.  I  rise  simply  to  say  that  we  have 
to  consider  pretty  carefully  whether  a  given  action  that  we 
are  proposing  is  necessary  to  the  business  that  is  before  us — 
namely,  the  unification  of  the  Churches — or  whether  it  is  one 
of  those  things  that  it  may  be  by  some  thought  to  be  desirable, 
utterly  apart  from  its  bearing  on  unification.  I  do  not  know 
what  demand  there  is  in  either  Church — I  have  not  been  made 
conscious  of  any  demand,  but  there  may  be  many  demands  of 
which  I  have  not  been  made  conscious — for  a  departure  from 
the  language  of  the  so-called  restrictive  rule,  which  language, 
as  I  understand,  is  substantiallv  the  same  in  the  two  Disci- 
plines; and  I  do  not  understand  that  there  is  serious  objection 
on  either  side  of  the  slight  line  that  divides  us  now  to  a  con- 
tinuance of  the  language  that  has  always  stood  in  the  Dis- 
cipline as  the  language  of  the  restrictive  rule.  My  own 
conviction  has  been  that  we  ought  to  consider  those  things 
that  will  surely  and  effectively  promote  union ;  that  those  other 
matters  that  may  be  desirable  by  way  of  reform  in  the  Church, 
we  would  do  well  to  consider  when  we  become  one  Church, 
and  not  complicate  the  question  of  union  with  proposed  re- 
forms that  do  not  irnmediately  promote  it.  For  that  reason 
I  am  myself  heartily  in  favor  of  the  language  of  the  restric- 
tive rule  as  it  stands  in  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  and  I  understand  substantially,  if  not  exactly 
the  same,  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  I  do 
this  not  at  all  in  the  way  of  any  consideration  in  the  interest  of 
protecting  or  not  protecting  a  particular  kind  of  episcopacy. 
I  do  not  need  to  say  at  the  beginning  that  my  personal  inter- 
ests in  and  relation  to  the  episcopacy  are  of  such  short  tenure, 
for  the  rest  of  my  life  after  this  union  is  accomplished,  that 
whatever  kind  of  episcopacy  the  united  Church  wants  I  am 
sure  it  ought  to  have.    It  is  no  part  of  my  principles  to  contend 


n6    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

for  episcopal  prerogatives.  Always  I  have  felt  in  the  office 
that  I  have  had  more  prerogatives  than  I  would  personally 
have  chosen. 

Bishop  Hoss:  What  prerogatives  have  you?  I  don't  believe 
a  bishop  has  any  prerogatives. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  have  more  than  I  personally  care  for. 

Bishop  Hoss :  I  have  many  duties,  but  no  prerogatives. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  only  rose  to  say  that  I  would  personally 
be  glad  to  have  the  language  of  the  restrictive  rule  remain 
as  that  language  has  remained  throughout  the  years,  for  the 
simple  reason  that  I  do  not  see  that  the  multiplication  of  words 
is  necessary  to  accomplish  the  union. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  I  am  in  favor  of  the  retention  of  the  clause 
as  printed  in  the  Committee's  report.  I  am  old  enough  to  have 
known  all  of  our  bishops  since  the  time  of  Morris  personally, 
and  that  is  some  time,  and  they  have  been  a  fine  body  of  men 
and  I  have  loved  nearly  all  of  them.  [Laughter.]  I  have  loved 
them  all  according  to  the  Scripture,  and  I  have  had  personal 
affections  for  nearly  all  of  thern.  Years  ago  I  was  a  clerk 
in  the  Methodist  Book  Concern,  and  in  that  way  I  became  ac- 
quainted with  so  many  of  our  bishops  that  I  knew  the  kind 
of  stuff  they  were  made  of ;  but  I  have  also  watched  the  de- 
velopment of  the  Church  very  carefully,  and  I  happened  to  be 
a  member  of  that  small  committee  in  Minneapolis  that  drew  up 
the  plan  of  the  area  superintendency  which  is  in  vogue  in  our 
Church,  and  I  was  very  gratified  at  our  last  General  Con- 
ference at  Saratoga  that  there  was  not  one  single  protest  or 
petition  of  any  kind  or  character  that  came  up  from  the  whole 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  asking  for  a  modification  or 
abandonment  of  the  area  planned.  Not  only  that,  but  the 
General  Conference  in  Minneapolis  required  that  the  bishops 
should  make  report  to  the  General  Conferences  of  the  work 
of  their  area  for  the  preceding  quadrennium,  and  those  reports 
excited  a  great  deal  of  interest  in  the  last  General  Conference. 
I  do  not  think  there  has  ever  been  a  time  in  the  history  of  the 
Church  during  my  close  connection  with  it  when  such  consecu- 
tive efforts  have  been  put  forward  by  our  bishops  for  the  de- 
velopment of  the  work  particularly  placed  under  their  care. 
In  other  words,  when  you  handle  a  particular  area  for  which 
you  are  responsible,  you  are  going  to  cultivate  it  a  good  deal 
more  thoroughly  than  when  you  have  the  whole  world  for 
your  parish.  I  am  entirely  with  Bishop  Mouzon  as  to  Section 
X.  I  want  to  take  all  of  that  Regional  Conference  business 
out  and  make  the  bishops  subject  to  proper  assignment  to  spe- 
cific work  at  different  times.  So  that  a  man  may  work  eight 
or  ten  or  sixteen  years  here  and  some  other  period  of  years 
some  other  place,  and  that  other  place  will  get  the  benefit  of 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


117 


the  widest  spirit  of  activities,  but  at  the  same  time  giving  him 
opportunity  of  cultivating  the  particular  field  and  being  defi- 
nitely responsible  for  a  given  field;  therefore,  to  put  in  words 
to  destroy  the  plan  of  our  itinerant  general  superintendency 
leaves  us  up  in  the  air  -as  to  what  is  our  plan,  and  this  leaves 
it  to  the  General  Conference  to  determine  it. 

Bishop  Hamilton:  I  want  to  ask  a  question,  but  before  I  do 
so  I  will  preface  it  with  some  suggestions  that  occur  to  my 
mind.  It  has  been  the  case  that  all  through  the  history  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  there  has  been  a  disposition  to 
criticize  the  episcopacy,  and  very  largely  because  that  criti- 
cism was  based  upon  objection  to  certain  men.  You  will  re- 
member that  in  the  case  of  Francis  Asbury  there  was  such 
a  criticism  at  one  time  that  he  wrote  a  letter  to  the  General 
Conference  asking  the  freest  discussion  of  the  criticism;  and 
that  there  might  be  no  embarrassment,  he  withdrew  from  the 
Conference  and  said  he  wanted  everything  that  was  said  against 
him  to  be  carefully  investigated.  Ever  since  I  have  been  in 
the  Church  I  have  found  that  as  we  have  approached  a  Gen- 
eral Conference  there  has  been  some  kind  of  criticism  both  of 
the  bishops  and  of  the  episcopacy.  I  have  heard  some  rumbling 
in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South ;  and  while  I  have  not 
read  the  laymen's  pamphlet  that  was  put  out  I  have  heard  enough 
about  it  to  understand  that  it  is  more  particularly  an  attack 
upon  either  the  bishops  or  the  episcopacy,  or  both,  than  any- 
thing else,  unless  I  am  mistaken.  Now,  I  am  getting  to  the 
question  I  desire  to  ask.  This  restrictive  rule  is  in  both  Dis- 
ciplines and  has  been  agreed  to  by  both  Churches  and  it  has 
been  satisfactory  to  a  majority  of  the  Church,  certainly  to  the 
General  Conferences  for  more  than  a  hundred  years.  What 
is  wrong  with  it?  What  is  the  object  of  this  new  interjection 
that  comes  up  now?  Is  there  anything  behind  this  that  we 
have  not  heard  or  that  is  not  disclosed?  That  is  what  I  am 
after.  Personally  some  member  has  said  to  me,  "It  doesn't 
matter  to  you;  you  are  through  with  it";  but  I  have  never  al- 
lowed my  personal  interest  or  personal  duties  to  determine 
a  general  principle.  I  want  to  know  why  this  is  introduced, 
unless  there  is  to  be  some  tendency  toward  diocesan  episcopacy 
and  a  restriction  of  the  episcopal  duties.  I  do  not  know  why 
it  is  we  should  have  something  injected  into  a  section  with 
which  we  have  been  satisfied  for  a  hundred  years.  If  the  breth- 
ren can  tell  us  why  they  want  to  change  the  restrictive  rule 
of  both  Churches  at  this  particular  time,  I  would  like  to  hear 
them.  Bishop  McDowell,  in  my  opinion,  has  injected  a  very 
proper  suggestion.  He  did  not  put  it  in  the  form  of  an  inquiry ; 
but  why  is  it  necessary  to  unification  that  we  should  tear  up 
the  whole  economy  of  the  episcopacy  as  it  existed  a  hundred 


n8    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

years  ago  and  as  it  exists  to-day?  The  episcopacy  is  not  a 
corpse.  It  is  far  from  it.  The  idea  of  saying  it  is  a  body  of 
death  and  ready  for  burial  when  it  is  one  hundred  years  old 
and  we  have  been  satisfied  with  it  all  the  time  doesn't  appeal 
to  me.  Why  say  it  is  dead?  I  want  to  know  whether  it  is  an 
intention  to  kill  it  or  whether  there  is  something  about  it  that 
is  really  dead. 

R.  E.  Blackwell :  I  want  to  know  about  some  matters  too. 
Suppose  this  stands  just  exactly  as  here — namely,  "Nor  do 
away  with  an  itinerant  general  superintendency" — would  that 
destroy  the  restrictive  rule? 

Bishop  Cooke:  It  is  substituted  for  the  restrictive  rule. 

R.  E.  Blackwell :  I  think  not. 

Bishop  Cooke :  Oh,  yes,  it  is. 

R.  E.  Blackwell :  Well,  I  am  not  from  Missouri ;  but  I  want 
to  know,  and  I  think  the  restrictive  rule  will  stand  where  it 
is  now.  I  am  willing  to  vote  for  anything,  just  so  we  get  on. 
If  you  want  to  do  away  with  the  general  superintendency — 
and  nobody  seems  to  know  what  our  general  superintendency 
means,  because  it  has  been  changing  all  the  time — we  will 
do  that  and  then  quarrel  about  it  when  we  get  into  the  united 
Church,  but  we  are  certainly  going  to  change  the  superintend- 
ency, because  we  are  going  to  change  and  the  world  is  going 
to  change.  Nobody  in  the  world  wants  it  as  it  is  to-day  with- 
out a  change  in  any  particular.  I  am  willing  to  leave  it  in- 
definite, so  that  we  can  get  on ;  and  we  can  quarrel  with  it  after- 
wards. Don't  take  up  the  whole  of  three  or  four  days  that  we 
have  in  quarreling  about  it,  when  we  shall  quarrel  about  it  any 
way  you  put  it.  So  I  will  vote  for  anything  anybody  wants,  so 
that  we  can  get  on. 

Edgar  Blake:  This  is  in  some  respects  the  most  significant 
and  interesting  discussion  we  have  had  on  this  section  or  on 
any  section.  Up  to  the  time  of  Dr.  Blackwell's  speech  we  had 
twelve  speeches  on  this  subject,  eight  of  them  by  bishops.  I 
am  beginning  to  think  that  in  this  particular  case,  indeed  if 
not  in  this  matter  of  unification,  the  negro  in  the  woodpile 
after  all  may  be  a  bishop;  and  it  seems  to  me,  from  the  dis- 
cussion we  have  had  on  this  subject,  that  this  is  looming  very 
much,  indeed  overly  much,  in  the  minds  of  the  episcopal  breth- 
ren. There  is  no  one  desiring  to  do  any  violence  to  the  epis- 
copacy, but  I  think  there  is  an  honest  and  honorable  desire 
on  the  part  of  many  of  us  to  be  able  to  so  relate  the  episcopacy 
to  the  tasks  of  this  modern  day  that  the  bishop  shall  no  longer 
be  a  bishop  everywhere  but  with  responsibilities  nowhere  and 
amenable  to  no  one.  I  think  the  day  for  that  kind  of  episcopal 
supervision  has  gone.  The  thing  we  are  seeking  is  to  protect 
exactly  what  it  was  designed  to  protect  when  it  was  introduced 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


in  1808 — namely,  to  provide  against  the  General  Conference 
ever  being  able  to  create  a  diocesan  episcopacy.  That  was 
the  thing  designed  to  be  accomplished  in  1808,  and  that  is  pre- 
cisely the  thing  that  the  Committee  is  aiming  to  do  here  by 
saying  that  the  General  Conference,  in  spite  of  the  powers 
given  to  it,  shall  never  do  away  with  an  itinerant  general  su- 
perintendency.  It  will  be  impossible  to  create  a  diocesan  epis- 
copacy under  this  plan.  That  is  exactly  the  language  we  are 
after.  But  when  we  come  into  future  General  Conferences 
of  the  reorganized  Church  to  deal  with  the  episcopacy,  to  vital- 
ize its  functions,  and  to  bring  it  in  quick,  active  touch  with  the 
field,  we  do  not  want  some  one  rising  up  and  saying  it  is  in  the 
restrictive  rule  that  the  General  Conference  shall  not  do  away 
with  the  plan  of  our  itinerant  general  superintendency,  and 
then  read  into  that  plan  everything  that  has  been  in  it  from 
the  days  of  Asbury  down  to  now. 

Bishop  Cooke :  May  I  say  in  closing  a  word  to  call  attention 
to  the  fact  that  we  have  not  got  into  this  subject  at  all? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Did  you  speak  on  this 
subject? 

Bishop  Cooke:  Not  on  this  subject.  I  am  calling  attention 
to  some  considerations  in  regard  to  this  matter : 

The  General  Conference  shall  not  change  nor  alter  any  part  or  rule 
of  our  government  so  as  to  do  away  with  the  episcopacy,  and  the  plan  of 
our  itinerant  general  superintendency. 

"The  plan  of  our  itinerant  general  superintendency,"  as  dis- 
tinguished from  every  other  kind  of  episcopacy,  is  a  part  of 
the  rules  of  our  government;  and  now  you  propose  to  take  out 
one  essential  element  of  this  and  still  call  it  the  rule  of  our 
government.  You  have  taken  the  pillars  out  from  under  it 
and  haven't  got  the  thing  at  all. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  If  you  will  allow  me  to 
speak  from  the  chair,  I  would  like  to  call  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  plan  referred  to  by  Bishop  McDowell,  our  plan  as 
operating  now  in  our  Church,  was  devised  by  the  bishops  in 
their  desire  to  meet  the  manifest  wishes  of  the  people  for 
consecutive  and  direct  supervision,  and  yet  was  devised  by 
the  bishops  with  the  general  opinion  that  it  was  not  in  any 
way  in  violation  of  the  restrictive  rules  in  that  it  did  not  do 
away  with  itinerant  general  superintendency.  Now,  it  strikes 
me  that  is  about  all  the  liberty  we  really  need.  I  mean  to  say 
that  whatever  liberty  is  necessary  has  been  exemplified  and 
made  use  of  practically  by  that  devise  or  change  made  by  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Next  I  would  call  attention  to 
the  fact  that  those  three  words  "itinerant  general  superintend- 
ency" following  the  word  "our"  may  be  simply  to  fix  a  con- 


120    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

ception  and  application  of  the  episcopacy  in  such  a  fashion 
that  somebody  might  refer  to  it  if  it  were  urged  that  it  were 
a  dead  body.  We  want  a  living  episcopacy.  Those  three  words 
''itinerant  general  superintendency"  are,  it  seems  to  me,  forever 
a  protection  against  diocesan  episcopacy  or  anything  approxi- 
mating diocesan  episcopacy.  My  preference  would  be  to  leave 
the  words  as  we  have  them,  "our  itinerant  general  superintend- 
ency/' illuminated  as  they  are  by  the  existence  already  of  an 
interpretation  of  those  words.  "Our  itinerant  general  super- 
intendency," accepted  for  years  by  these  contracting  parties, 
illuminated  by  interpretation,  it  seems  to  me  would  always  be 
suggestive,  if  not  determinative,  in  the  interpretation  that  might 
be  introduced.  If  Dr.  Blake  could  get  rid  of  "the  plan" — that 
is  the  word  that  really  ties  it  up.  If  we  could  have  it  "shall 
not  destroy  our  itinerant  general  superintendency,"  I  think 
we  would  have  a  fair  middle  ground  and  perhaps  a  good  solu- 
tion of  the  whole  matter. 

John  J.  Wallace:  I  was  about  to  move  an  amendment  to 
Bishop  Mouzon's  amendment — namely,  the  elimination  of  the 
words  "the  plan  of,"  so  that  it  would  read:  "or  destroy  our 
itinerant  general  superintendency." 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Do  you  make  that  as  a 
motion  ? 

John  J.  Wallace:  Yes,  sir. 

Alexander  Simpson,  Jr. :  I  second  the  motion. 

Bishop  Hoss:  I  don't  know  whether,  under  the  rule,  I  am 
allowed  to  speak  again  or  not. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  This  is  a  new  amend- 
ment; you  are  all  right. 

Bishop  Hoss :  I  am  opposed  to  this  amendment.  If  you  cut 
those  words  out,  you  cut  everything  that  is  cardinal  and  dis- 
tinctive in  that  restrictive  rule.  Those  of  you  who  know  his- 
tory are  aware  of  the  fact  that  when  Ezekiel  Cooper  was  on 
the  subcommittee  to  report  a  Constitution  he  brought  in  a 
report  that  they  shall  not  reduce  our  ministry  nor  tamper  with 
the  episcopacy.  Joshua  Soule  brought  in  the  report  that  was 
actually  adopted,  and  the  reason  it  was  adopted  was  that  just 
before  it  was  adopted  Ezekiel  Cooper  tried  to  bring  in  his 
paper  in  favor  of  diocesan  episcopacy,  and  it  was  to  meet  that 
very  condition  that  this  restrictive  rule  was  adopted  in  the 
very  form  in  which  it  exists.  I  don't  care  a  copper  cent  in- 
dividually for  anything  that  belongs  to  the  episcopacy.  I  never 
sought  the  office  and  have  not  sought  to  keep  it,  and  I  would 
not  turn  over  my  hand  to-morrow,  especially  in  view  of  the 
lawless  agitation  going  on  in  the  Church.  I  know  what  it 
means.  I  know  it  in  my  own  body.  I  bear  in  my  body  the 
marks  of  it,  but  I  am  interested  in  the  Methodist  Church  after 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


121 


I  am  dead  and  gone.  It  is  not  that  I  care  for  my  individual 
rights — or  prerogatives,  as  you  say.  I  detest  that  word,  Bish- 
op McDowell,  and  I  am  your  good  friend;  but  I  do  hope  you 
won't  use  that  word  any  more.  I  implore  you  as  a  brother  in 
the  Lord  not  to  use  the  word  "prerogative."  Prerogative  is 
something  personal  that  you  cannot  take  away  from  a  man. 
I  have  got  no  prerogatives.  I  have  got  a  lot  of  duties  that 
are  definite  and  I  am  responsible  for  those  duties,  and  it  is 
a  great  mistake  to  think  that  a  bishop  is  responsible  to  nobody. 
I  have  never  been  before  the  Committee  on  the  Episcopacy 
myself,  but  in  due  order  of  time  I  am  likely  to  get  there.  I 
will  never  make  confession  to  them  when  I  get  before  them. 
I  have  done  my  duty  according  to  the  law  and,  as  I  said  this 
morning,  while  I  don't  care  individually  what  you  do,  yet  I  am 
concerned  that  we  shall  have  the  bishops  operating  according 
to  our  present  plan.  If  you  do  not  have  that,  it  does  not  do  any 
good  to  say  that  it  is  an  itinerant  general  superintendency. 
There  is  something  more  in  this  restrictive  rule  than  the  sim- 
ple right  to  go  somewhere,  and  I  sincerely  hope  you  are  not 
going  to  make  that  change  there.  I  give  you  notice  fairly  and 
squarely  that  I  am  not  bound  by  this  action,  and  I  am  going 
to  fight  this  thing  if  I  die  fighting.  I  am  going  to  fight  it  be- 
cause I  love  my  Church  and  because  I  love  the  history  of  my 
Church  and  because  I  love  Asbury  and  McKendree  and  Soule, 
and  I  am  not  going  to  welcome  any  episcopacy  for  small  men 
to  occupy  a  certain  corner. 

A.  F.  Watkins :  In  one  of  the  short  speeches  that  has  been 
made  on  this  subject  the  statement  was  made,  if  I  did  not  mis- 
understand it,  in  favor  of  the  retention  of  the  words  as  they 
exist  at  the  present  time,  that  they  do  contain  the  expression 
"our  itinerant  general  superintendency."  They  do  contain  the 
words  "rule  of  our  government,"  but  they  do  not  contain  the 
words  "our  itinerant  general  superintendency,"  but  the  words 
are  "an  itinerant  general  superintendency."  I  am  unwilling  that 
the  impression  should  be  made  that  the  present  wording  has 
the  definitive  of  that  degree  of  strength.  I  wished  to  bring 
that  out  and  say  that  I  do  not  favor  Dr.  Wallace's  amendment 
to  the  amendment,  but  favor  the  original  amendment  of  Bishop 
Mouzon. 

David  G.  Downey:  I  would  like  to  hear  Dr.  Wallace's  amend- 
ment once  more. 

John  J.  Wallace:  My  amendment  was  to  make  the  words 
read  "or  destroy  our  itinerant  general  superintendency." 

David  G.  Downey:  According  to  the  amendment  of  Dr.  Wal- 
lace, it  does  contain  the  words  "our  itinerant  general  super- 
intendency," and  that  is  the  amendment  I  favor.  I  confess 
that  I  had  some  hesitancy  in  making  up  my  mind,  and  I  am  not 


122    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

very  much  impressed  with  the  constant  reference  in  some  of 
the  speeches  to  the  fathers  and  to  the  fact  that  they  made  the 
episcopacy,  and  that  it  ought  to  be  retained  just  because  it  has 
come  down  to  us  from  the  fathers.  We  are  not  building  for 
the  past;  we  are  building  for  the  future.  I  have  no  question 
but  that  the  fathers  built  well.  I  have  no  question  but  that 
the  fathers  were  men  of  God  and  that  they  legislated  according 
to  their  light,  and  I  believe  they  legislated  wisely  and  well  for 
their  day.  I  reverence  the  old-time  faith  and  men,  but  God  is 
with  us  now  as  then,  and  our  business  is  not  to  hold  so  fast  to 
the  past  that  we  shall  tie  up  the  future.  What  we  need  to 
do  is  to  conserve  all  these  essential  features  and  let  go  some 
of  the  things  that  might  fetter  and  bind  us.  The  word  "plan" 
fetters  and  binds.  It  has  hindered,  and  it  has  been  necessary 
for  us  to  interpret  to  get  around  that  word.  We  believe  in  "our 
itinerant  general  superintendency,"  but  the  "plan"  is  something 
that  has  been  changed,  that  ought  to  be  changed,  and  will  be 
changed  as  the  necessities  arise,  not  only  to-day  but  in  the  days 
that  are  to  be.  I  don't  want  to  bind  my  hand  by  the  past  and  I 
don't  want  to  put  any  fetters  on  the  minds  and  hearts  of  the 
men  who  are  to  come  after  me,  and  especially  I  do  not  want 
to  bind  the  Spirit  of  God  and  hinder  it  in  having  free  play 
in  its  guiding  influence  upon  the  hearts  and  minds  of  men. 

Alexander  Simpson,  Jr. :  I  simply  rise  to  move  the  pre- 
vious question. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  the  main 
question  was  ordered. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  The  original  motion  of 
Bishop  Mouzon  was  to  make  Section  2  read :  "The  General 
Conference  shall  not  change  or  alter  any  part  or  rule  of  our 
government  so  as  to  do  away  the  episcopacy,  or  to  destroy  the 
plan  of  our  itinerant  general  superintendency."  Dr.  Wallace's 
amendment  was  to  have  the  last  clause  read  "or  to  destroy  our 
itinerant  general  superintendency."  The  vote  will  be  on  the 
amendment  of  Dr.  Wallace. 

A  vote  being  taken  and  a  division  called  for,  it  resulted  in 
27  for  and  17  against,  so  the  amendment  of  Dr.  Wallace  prevailed. 

A  further  vote  being  taken,  the  amendment  of  Bishop  Mou- 
zon, as  amended  by  the  amendment  of  Dr.  Wallace,  was  adopted 
by  a  vote  of  23  for  and  7  against. 

H.  M.  Du  Bose :  I  now  rise  to  present  the  matter  that  I 
have  broached  several  times. 

Edgar  Blake :  No ;  first  we  must  adopt  the  section  as  amended. 
I  move  that  the  section  as  amended  be  adopted. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

H.  M.  Du  Bose:  I  now  rise  to  present  and  discuss  briefly 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


123 


the  matter  already  broached,  the  elimination  of  certain  words 
from  Subsection  7  of  Section  2,  "Powers."  I  think  the  proper 
procedure  is  to  ask  for  a  reconsideration,  and  I  move  a  recon- 
sideration of  the  vote  by  which  item  7,  under  "Powers  of  the 
General  Conference,"  was  adopted,  and  I  want  to  offer  this 
amendment:  In  line  9  of  Article  VII.,  beginning  at  the  first 
line,  about  four  words  fromj  the  beginning  of  the  sentence,  "but 
any  bishop  may  be  assigned  by  the  general  superintendents  to 
any  Annual  Conference  for  presidential  supervision  if  a  ma- 
jority of  the  resident  bishops  of  the  Jurisdiction  to  which  he 
is  assigned  shall  concur  in  said  assignment."  Then  I  want 
to  strike  out  all  of  line  10,  so  that  it  will  read :  "But  any  bishop 
may  be  assigned  by  the  general  superintendents  to  any  An- 
nual Conference  for  presidential  supervision." 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  a  vote  being  taken,  a  recon- 
sideration was  agreed  to. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  The  motion  is  to  strike 
out  the  words  "if  a  majority  of  the  resident  bishops  of  the 
Jurisdiction  to  which  he  is  assigned  shall  concur  in  said  as- 
signment." 

Bishop  Denny :  That  was  one  point  upon  which  we  so  stren- 
uously insisted,  and  the  striking  out  of  this  would  do  away  with 
the  autonomy  of  the  Regional  Conferences  and  would  give 
to  the  College  of  Bishops  the  right  to  assign  a  man  to  a  field  in 
which  he  had  not  been  elected  and  in  which  he  might  not  be 
acceptable.  The  purpose  of  the  inclusion  of  these  words  was 
to  make  sure  that  in  each  Regional  Conference  nobody  could  be 
put  over  them  as  a  bishop  without  their  consent,  and  now  here 
comes  an  amendment  that  proposes  to  strike  out  the  protec- 
tion that  the  Regional  Conferences  have  to  see  that  the  men 
who  are  to  supervise  the  work  in  their  regions  are  taken 
away  from  them.  That  makes  this  thing  worse  and  worse  as 
we  go  along.  We  propose  that  each  Region  shall  have  the  right 
to  elect  its  own  bishop,  and  that  for  the  reason  that  we  do 
not  propose  to  say  that  men  shall  be  put  over  those  who  do 
not  want  to  be  under  their  guidance ;  and  now  comes  the  amend- 
ment and  says  we  will  strike  out  all  that  and  allow  a  bishop 
elected  at  any  point  in  the  Church  to  be  assigned  down  here 
where  he  might  not  be  acceptable,  and  we  cut  the  very  ground 
from  under  the  provision  that  led,  I  am,  sure,  to  a  good  many 
votes  for  that  provision. 

H.  M.  Du  Bose:  The  amendment  is  offered  for  the  broad  and 
comprehensive  purpose  of  fixing  the  idea  of  the  general  su- 
perintendency.  Since  this  form  of  statement  was  made  in  the 
committee  a  general  discussion  has  ensued,  and  my  observation 
has  been,  at  least  I  have  noticed  the  fact,  that  the  charge  is 
made  that  the  episcopacy  is  being  reduced  to  a  diocesan  level. 


124    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

I  may  be  in  error,  but  my  idea  is  that  this  will  shut  the  mouth 
of  the  opposition  on  that  score,  and  I  cannot  see  that  it  opens 
up  any  peril  on  the  other  score.  The  matter  is  in  the  hands 
of  our  bishops  who  are  general  superintendents  and  who  will 
know  all  the  conditions,  and  if  there  are  reasons  why  a  man 
should  not  be  sent  into  other  Jurisdictions,  they  will  know  it. 
If  we  cannot  depend  on  them  to  do  justice  to  the  general 
Church  and  these  Regions,  I  do  not  see  that  we  can  depend 
upon  them  for  any  other  matters,  and  it  was  with  this  view,  and 
as  a  parity  of  the  action  we  have  just  taken  practically  adopt- 
ing the  general  rule  as  it  stands  in  the  old  Discipline  regard- 
ing the  episcopacy,  that  this  motion  was  submitted. 

Bishop  Denny:  There  are  holes  in  there  through  which  you 
could  drive  a  coach  and  four. 

H.  M.  Du  Bose:  I  opposed  this  in  the  Committee  and  I 
gave  notice  that  I  would  offer  a  substitute.  I  believe  this  sub- 
stitute that  has  been  offered  is  a  protection  to  the  episcopacy 
and  preserves  in  this  Constitution  the  idea  of  an  itinerant  gen- 
eral superintendency.  I  may  be  mistaken  in  that,  but  if  I  can 
construe  language  it  does. 

Bishop  Denny  resumed  the  chair  as  presiding  officer. 

Bishop  Cranston :  I  know  that  the  good  bishops  are  all  dying 
off  and  going  to  heaven,  but  somehow  or  other  I  have  faith 
that  there  will  be  some  men  chosen  to  the  episcopacy  who  will 
have  as  full  communion  with  God  and  as  vital  relation  to  the 
Church  and  as  sincere  a  desire  for  its  welfare  as  this  Com- 
mission or  as  the  ministers  and  Churches  as  a  body  can  claim. 
There  can  be  no  act  of  folly  greater  than  the  action  of  the  Col- 
lege of  Bishops  assigning  to  any  residential  area  for  presidency 
a  man  temperamentally  or  in  any  other  way  unfit  for  that 
particular  service.  Let  us  trust  those  men  who  are  to  come 
after  us.  Dr.  Du  Bose  is  absolutely  right  in  regard  to  that 
clause  as  to  its  being  criticized  because  of  its  implication  as 
against  the  methods  of  the  past  and  not  favorable  to,  but  ac- 
tually inimical  to,  the  thing  proposed  for  the  future.  If  we 
cannot  trust  the  bishops  to  make  rational  and  fitting  assign- 
ments of  men  to  preside  at  a  Conference,  we  might  as  well 
stop  where  we  are  and  disband  both  Churches.  You  have  no 
episcopacy  left.  You  have  no  episcopacy  that  you  can  trust. 
If  you  want  absolute  protection,  put  in  there  that  the  College 
of  Bishops  by  a  two-thirds  vote  may  assign  any  bishop  any- 
where. I  don't  care  for  that,  but  for  goodness  sake  let's  get 
this  thing  out. 

Bishop  Cooke :  I  seconded  the  motion  of  Dr.  Du  Bose.  Will 
you  please  turn  to  page  n,  Subsection  2?  I  wish  to  show,  if 
Bishop  Denny's  objection  or  contention  shall  be  held  valid,  the 
delightful  consistency  of  our  proposed  form  of  government.  The 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


General  Conference  shall  not  change  nor  alter  any  part  or  rule  of 
our  government  so  as  to  do  away  with  episcopacy,  nor  to  do 
away  with  an  "itinerant  general  superintendency,"  but  "a  ma- 
jority of  the  resident  bishops  in  the  jurisdiction  to  which  he 
may  be  assigned  may  do  so  by  not  concurring  in  the  assignment/' 
That  is  a  beautiful  thing  for  us  to  say,  that  the  General  Con- 
ference shall  not  do  so,  and  yet  we  put  into  the  power  of  the  bish- 
ops to  do  that  very  thing.  The  General  Conference  shall  not 
change  nor  alter  the  rules  of  our  government  nor  take  away  an 
"itinerant  general  superintendency,"  which  means  that  the  gen- 
eral superintendent  has  a  right  to  travel  through  the  connection. 
The  General  Conference  cannot  change  that,  but  according  to 
this  proposed  plan  one  man  in  the  Board  of  Bishops  can.  I 
do  not  care  to  go  further  to  show  the  value  of  the  episcopacy. 
You  cannot  keep  a  body  of  men  in  the  same  jurisdiction  for 
any  length  of  time,  unless  there  is  an  extraordinarily  able  man 
as  bishop,  without  producing  new  conditions.  He  becomes  a 
ruler  of  a  lot  of  weaklings  or  he  will  be  influenced  by  stronger 
men.  The  best  possible  thing  that  can  happen  to  Methodism 
is  to  have  the  circulation  of  the  blood  of  Methodism  through 
the  whole  body,  and  the  way  to  prevent  any  bishop  from  being 
moved  by  a  clique  of  strong,  able  men  whom  he  must  respect. 
If  he  regards  them  he  will  be  ruled  by  them,  and  if  he  does 
not  regard  them  he  will  have  their  enmity.  As  for  myself  in 
the  episcopacy,  there  is  one  thing  clear  to  me,  and  that  is  that 
the  glory  of  the  episcopacy  ends  with  the  election. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Your  time  has  expired. 

Bishop  Cooke :  It  seems  to  me  my  time  runs  out  mighty  quick. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  That  was  a  good  speech  Bishop  Cooke 
made,  and  I  think  I  will  indorse  everything  he  said.  I  am  not 
at  all  apprehensive.  I  am  not  fearing  that  the  College  of  Bish- 
ops would  assign  one  of  their  number  to  a  presidency  over  a 
group  of  Conferences  where  that  presidency  would  be  any  more 
seriously  objected  to  than  is  possible  in  either  Church  at  the 
present  time.  It  is  altogether  possible  in  either  of  our  great 
Churches,  stretching  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific  and  going 
into  foreign  lands,  that  sometimes  a  bishop  may  be  assigned 
to  the  presidency  of  a  group  of  Conferences  when  his  presi- 
dency is  not  altogether  agreeable.  I  have  no  fear  at  that  point 
whatsoever.  I  heartily  indorse  what  was  said  by  our  good 
Bishop  Cranston,  that  we  ought  to  be  willing  to  trust  to  the 
good  sense  and  piety  of  the  men  who  are  going  to  come  after  us. 
It  would  be  exceedingly  unfortunate  if  a  certain  group  of 
bishops  should  manage  the  affairs  of  the  Church  in  a  certain 
region  and  never  go  out  of  that  region.  For  then  you  would 
develop  a  perpetual  sectionalism,  both  in  the  Church  and  in 
the  country,  which  nobody  desires  to-day.    I  suppose  every  one 


126   Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

who  is  familiar  with  the  history  of  American  Methodism  knows 
that  Bishop  George  and  Bishop  Hedding,  particularly  Bishop 
George,  were  itinerants  in  the  Northeast  and  Bishop  McKendree 
and  Bishop  Soule  were  itinerants  chiefly  in  the  Southwest  section 
of  the  Church,  and  that  that  fact  had  much  to  do  with  the  dis- 
cussion. 

Bishop  Denny:  You  are  off  on  the  history.  George  did  great 
service  down  in  this  section. 

Bishop  Mouzon:  I  may  be  off  at  some  points,  but  I  am  not 
off  at  that  point,  for  everybody  knows  that  George  had  been 
assigned  for  one  year  in  New  England  and  he  insisted  that  the 
assignment  was  for  four  years  and  wouldn't  come  to  the  Bish- 
ops' Meeting,  and  when  he  did  he  wouldn't  recognize  the  au- 
thority of  that  Bishops'  Meeting  and  Bishop  McKendree  was 
about  to  prefer  charges  against  him. 

Bishop  Denny:  You  have  got  that  wrong. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  No,  I  have  not.  The  itinerant  general 
superintendency  is  one  of  the  chief  points  of  our  connectionalism. 
There  is  no  question  of  that.  If  you  put  a  man  in  a  certain  re- 
gion and  let  him  stay  there,  it  might  be  necessary  for  new  blood 
to  come  into  that  region  from  another  part  of  the  Church,  and 
how  is  he  going  to  get  him  in  unless  he  has  the  presidency  of 
other  Conferences  so  that  he  might  bring  it  in?  We  don't  want 
anything  that  will  split  Methodism  into  a  group  of  little  Churches, 
and  if  you  put  your  bishops  all  the  time  into  certain  regions  and 
keep  them  there  you  are  not  making  a  unified  Methodism,  and 
what  we  want  is  unified  Methodism.  I  stand  in  favor  of  Dr.  Du 
Bose's  amendment. 

W.  N.  Ainsworth :  I  am  very  deeply  concerned  that  American 
Methodism  shall  have  a  strong  and  virile  episcopacy,  clothed 
with  authority  that  shall  make  efficient  leadership  for  the 
Church.  I  do  not  believe  the  plan  of  the  itinerant  general  su- 
perintendency in  its  essence  is  any  more  violated  by  the  as- 
signment of  a  bishop  to  a  restricted  area  for  a  period  of  time 
than  itinerancy  is  violated  by  my  assignment  for  a  given  time 
to  a  given  pastoral  charge.  I  deeply  believe,  however,  that  it 
will  not  be  possible  to  secure  the  adoption  of  this  plan  for 
unification  of  the  Church,  at  least  in  my  section  of  the  Church, 
unless  we  shall  enter  upon  it  with  these  safeguards  thrown 
around  our  episcopal  administration.  And  I  believe  further : 
If  we  recognize  the  fact  that  there  is  a  lack  of  confidence  at  the 
present  time  and  shall  go  into  the  matter  under  the  conditions 
here  laid  down,  not  ten  years  will  have  passed  by  before  the 
bishops  will  be  falling  from  one  side  of  the  continent  to  the 
other;  but  if  you  take  out  this  clause  which  is  here  found 
you  will  be  open  to  one  of  the  most  serious  attacks  that  will 
be  launched  against  this  plan  anywhere,  and  I  very  earnestly 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


\2J 


believe  it  would  be  defeated  on  this  ground.  I  think  we  should 
enter  upon  this  plan  with  these  restrictions  and  let  the  General 
Conference  of  the  united  Church  modify  it  throughout  the  lapse 
of  years. 

Claudius  B.  Spencer:  I  am  constrained  to  take  your  time 
for  a  moment  and  present  this  case  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
border  Conferences.  Have  you  reflected  that  in  this  pro- 
posed division  of  the  Church  you  have  thrown  several  hun- 
dred thousand  of  our  people  into  Southern  Jurisdictions?  I 
maintain  that  in  order  to  make  this  transfer  without  the  loss  of 
thousands  of  them — I  believe  I  am  conservative  in  saying  multi- 
plied thousands — it  will  be  most  happy  if  the  bishops  from  the 
Northern  Jurisdiction  can  administer  the  Conferences  in  those 
border  States.  I  have  heard  on  a  number  of  occasions  in  these 
sessions  of  the  Joint  Commission  statements  made  concerning 
what  actions  were  necessary  to  carry  certain  constituency  in 
certain  areas.  I  don't  remember  to  have  heard  such  statements 
made  concerning  our  people,  but  I  can  assure  Brother  Ains- 
worth  that  he  has  touched  upon  a  very  tender  point  among 
many  good  people  who  are  not  narrow,  who  are  loyal  to  the 
traditions  in  which  they  were  raised,  and  who  believe,  as  Bish- 
op Alpheus  Wilson  properly  said  of  his  denomination  that  there 
were  many  good  people  who  would  think  they  were  being  de- 
livered into  the  hands  of  their  enemies.  There  are  many  in  the 
border  States  who  have  that  feeling,  and  unless  some  provision 
is  made  at  this  time  it  will  work  against  us.  I  speak  with  ad- 
miration for  the  men  who  proposed  and  advocated  this  amend- 
ment, and  I  sincerely  hope  it  will  prevail;  then  we  shall  have 
one  nexus,  one  point  by  which  we  can  tide  over  the  Church 
in  the  days  to  come.  I  am  not  one  of  those  who  are  afraid  that 
we  are  going  to  elect  bishops  who  are  going  to  deliberately  set 
out  to  deplete  the  Church.  If  there  is  anybody  who  has  a 
feeling  for  protecting  the  Church,  it  is  those  who  have  shep- 
herd's flocks  under  them.  For  the  sake  of  an  equitable  and  har- 
monious movement  over  into  the  new  order  of  things,  as  well 
as  for  all  the  future,  I  hope  the  amendment  will  prevail. 

Edwin  M.  Randall:  We  are  seeking  the  kind  of  episcopacy 
in  which  I  believe  and  thoroughly  favor,  and  the  threatened 
loss  of  which  I  protested  against  at  the  time  this  provision  was 
adopted.  I  believe  in  an  episcopacy  that  will  serve  through- 
out the  whole  length  and  breadth  of  our  land,  but  at  the  present 
time,  in  the  present  frame  of  mind  looking  to  the  adoption  of  the 
plan  that  we  may  submit  to  the  Church,  I  do  believe  that  a 
Church-wide  assignment  without  a  Church-wide  election  will 
increase  in  places  at  least  the  difficulty  of  getting  an  adoption 
of  this  plan.  I  believe  Brother  Ainsworth  is  thoroughly  right 
there. 


128    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

Frank  M.  Thomas:  In  my  judgment  we  ought  to  let  this  stand 
where  it  is.  I  agree  with  Dr.  Ainsworth  that  time  will  cure 
any  local  conditions.  We  may  talk  very  theoretically  about 
the  bishopric,  and  there  is  no  man  who  respects  the  bishopric 
more  than  I  do;  but  it  is  not  as  beautiful  in  theory  as  we  have 
sometimes  claimed.  The  College  of  Bishops  sometimes  have 
to  assign  men — I  don't  know  whether  it  is  true  in  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church — under  considerable  difficulties;  sometimes 
petitions  are  secretly  circulated  against  a  man  holding  a  certain 
Conference,  and  they  have  to  deal  with  those  facts.  If  men  who 
elect  men  to  the  bishopric  know  that  these  men  are  to  preside 
over  them,  they  will  be  more  careful  about  whom  they  elect,  and 
I  believe  that,  for  the  present  at  least,  we  should  leave  this  just 
as  it  stands. 

Abram  W.  Harris:  I  would  like  to  ask  Dr.  Du  Bose  whether 
his  amendment,  if  adopted,  would  affect  the  resident  bishops 
or  only  the  temporary  presidents? 

H.  M.  Du  Bose:  It  bears  only  on  the  temporary  presidencies. 

Bishop  Denny:  It  gives  a  man  power  to  make  any  appoint- 
ment for  men  by  whom  he  has  not  been  elected. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  Dr.  Ainsworth  is  exactly  right,  and  some  others 
have  referred  to  the  fact  that  along  the  border  we  have  a  good 
many  people  who  will  be  very  seriously  affected  against  our 
action  if  we  adopt  Dr.  Du  Bose's  motion  and  eliminate  this 
provision  from  our  action.  I  simiply  call  attention  to  the  fact 
that  we  have  in  the  heart  of  the  South  a  very  large  part  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  who  are  oiot  going  to 
adopt  anything  that  we  do  unless  their  own  autonomy  is  se- 
cured, their  right  to  deal  with  their  own  individual  local  mat- 
ters. This  question  of  the  bishopric  is  a  vital  question  with 
them,  and  I  am  pretty  thoroughly  convinced,  while  I  am  no 
prophet,  that  if  you  adopt  this  motion  of  Dr.  Du  Bose's  and 
eliminate  this  provision  for  protection  as  they  regard  it,  it 
will  be  absolutely  impossible  to  carry  your  plan  through  the 
next  General  Conference  of  our  Church. 

David  G.  Downey:  I  had  not  thought  to  say  anything  on  this 
subject;  but  if  this  matter  is  as  serious  as  some  of  our  brethren 
of  the  other  Church  seem  to  think  it  is,  it  is  really  of  great  and 
grave  importance.  Brethren  here  say  they  are  not  prophets  or 
sons  of  prophets,  yet  they  do  prophesy  that  if  this  little  restric- 
tion is  taken  away  it  will  suffice  to  stop  unification.  I  am  not 
a  prophet  nor  a  son  of  a  prophet,  but  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that 
if  you  insist  upon  the  strict  letter  of  the  law  as  set  forth  by 
Bishop  Denny,  as  I  understood  him,  that  bishops  are  to  be  elected 
by  Regions  or  small  areas  or  Regional  Conferences,  and  are 
to  be  confined  to  them  in  their  presidency  practically  and  abso- 
lutely except  as  they  are  invited  to  go  elsewhere,  you  run  up 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


129 


against  a  very  serious  obstacle  to  the  adoption  of  this  plan  by  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Church,  North.  Personally  I  would 
feel  inclined  to  oppose  it  on  the  basis  that  it  destroys  our  itin- 
erant general  superintendency.  I  am  heartily  in  favor  of  the 
amendment.  You  say  that  unless  the  bishopric  stays  as  it  is 
you  cannot  get  it  through  your  General  Conference.  We  have 
the  feeling  that  unless  this  amendment  prevails  we  cannot  get 
it  through  ours.  We  may  both  be  wrong,  or  neither,  but  we 
shall  have  to  vote  our  convictions. 

R.  E.  Blackwell :  I  would  like  to  offer  an  amendment  to  the 
amendment  that  it  seems  to  me  will  satisfy  our  people  of  the 
South  and  have  it  read  this  way:  "But  any  bishop  may  be  as- 
signed by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  General  Conference  to  any 
Annual  Conference  for  presidential  supervision."  That  would 
give  us  an  opportunity  in  the  South  to  check  anybody  being 
sent  to  us  if  we  object  to  him,  because  I  suppose  we  should 
certainly  have  over  one-third — 

Bishop  Hoss:  We  only  had  two  for  forty  years  before  we 
separated. 

R.  E.  Blackwell:  I  believe  that  would  protect  us,  and  there- 
fore I  would  like  to  make  that  motion,  to  substitute  "may  be 
assigned  by  a  two-thirds  vote  to  the  general  superintendency  of 
any  Annual  Conference  for  presidential  supervision." 

The  motion  was  seconded. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  do  not  have  much  confidence  in  these  prophe- 
cies on  either  side.  My  judgment  is,  if  the  Commission  is  able 
to  agree  upon  a  plan  of  unification,  the  General  Conference  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  is  not  going  to  estop 
union  simply  because  the  bishops  have  been  given  power  to  as- 
sign any  member  of  the  Episcopal  Board  to  any  Conference  in 
the  field  for  presidential  supervision.  I  have  too  much' confi- 
dence in  the  good  sense  of  the  General  Conference  to  believe 
that  such  a  thing  would  happen.  Now  concerning  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  I  do  not  think 
for  a  moment,  even  though  so  good  and  influential  a  member 
as  Dr.  Downey  would  oppose  it  on  the  floor — I  do  not  believe 
the  General  Conference  of  our  Church  would  defeat  unification 
simply  because  the  bishops  were  given  this  power. 

David  G.  Downey:  That  was  not  what  I  said. 

Edgar  Blake:  Then  I  misunderstood  you. 

David  G.  Downey :  I  said  they  could  withhold  the  power. 

Edgar  Blake :  Then  I  withdraw  the  remark. 

Bishop  Hoss :  We  are  going  to  have  a  General  Conference  in 
three  weeks,  and  we  are  going  to  have  a  big  lot  of  bishops 
there  and  we  can  ship  some  of  them  North  if  you  want  them. 

Edgar  Blake:  There  is  no  bishop  from  any  Southern  Church 
that  we  will  not  welcome  for  presidential  supervision.  I  be- 
9 


130   Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

lieve  this  is  a  bugaboo,  and  that  we  do  not  have  to  take  counsel 
of  our  fears  in  this  matter.  I  hope  the  amendment  offered  by  Dr. 
Du  Bose  will  carry,  and  let  us  trust  to  the  good  sense  of  the 
bishops  to  handle  this  matter.  I  cannot  conceive  for  a  moment 
that  a  majority  of  the  Board  of  Bishops  or  the  College  of 
Bishops  would  send  a  bishop  to  preside  anywhere  where  he 
would  not  be  welcome.  We  have  to  trust  some  things  to  those 
brethren. 

A.  F.  Watkins :  I  have  not  heard  any  defense  of  the  letter  of 
the  action  as  tentatively  passed  except  on  the  terms  of  expedi- 
ency. The  broadest  term  would  not  indorse  it — that  is,  the  terms 
on  the  merits  of  the  question  itself.  I  have  not  been  able  to 
withhold  the  impression  made  on  my  mind  by  Dr.  Ainsworth 
and  Dr.  Lamar,  but  I  believe  this  is  right.  The  episcopacy  that 
I  would  have  would  be  one  that  is  without  seam  and  that  is 
woven  throughout  from  top  to  bottom.  I  would  have  if  I  could, 
if  it  were  not  for  1844,  a  restoration  of  the  status  quo  ante  1844 ; 
but  I  say  if  it  were  not  for  1844.  Since  1844  I  realize  that  there 
can  be  no  unification  in  the  Church  except  by  reorganization, 
and  for  that  reason  I  plead  for  the  Regional  Conferences  that 
amount  to  something;  but  I  believe  just  as  certainly  that  no  good 
American  ought  to  do  anything  that  would  throw  a  seam  be- 
tween the  North  and  South,  or  the  East  and  West;  that  no  good 
Methodist  ought  to  recognize  unnecessarily  any  sort  of  seam 
in  this  great  united  Church,  if  we  should  have  one.  I  want  a 
Methodism  in  which  Bishop  Candler  can  preside  in  New  Eng- 
land and  in  which  Bishop  McDowell  can  preside  in  Mississippi. 
I  do  not  know  how  much  force  there  is  in  this  latter  action, 
but  it  may  be  that  it  might  jeopardize  things  and  I  would  dep- 
recate it  if  it  did.  It  may  be  that  it  will  not  and  it  ought  not 
to  do  it.  If  there  is  one  power  that  is  to  cement  our  continent 
together  as  Methodists,  it  is  to  be  our  itinerant  general  super- 
intendency,  and  have  we  not  for  matters  of  expediency  done  a 
thing  that  seems  to  neutralize  and  paralyze  in  part  the  power 
and  virtue  of  that  itinerant  general  superintendence7  ?  and,  after 
all,  what  is  our  protection  down  in  the  Southeastern  Jurisdic- 
tion against  some  bishop  who  would  be  objectionable  to  us? 
It  is  not  through  our  preachers,  who  would  have  the  right  to 
say  whether  he  would  be  or  not.  It  is  not  with  our  members, 
but  it  is  the  judgment  of  our  bishops  as  to  whether  he  would 
or  not.  Now  with  all  due  appreciation  of  that  sort  of 
protection,  would  not  we  have  that  same  protection  in  the  meet- 
ings of  the  College  of  Bishops  when  our  bishop  would  be  there 
to  say  that  that  man  would  not  be  acceptable  among  our  peo- 
ple? We  would  not  lose  a  thing  except  on  the  matter  of  ex- 
pediency for  campaign  purposes.  I  don't  object  to  campaign 
purposes,  provided  it  does  not  interfere  with  the  matter  of  prin- 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


ciple.  If  I  believed  it  would  seriously  jeopardize  our  success,  I 
would  be  willing  to  throw  logic  to  the  winds  for  the  time  and 
pin  my  faith  to  the  prophecies  of  Dr.  Ainsworth.  But  prophe- 
cies are  dangerous  things.  This  thing  looks  to  me  broad  and 
right. 

E.  C.  Reeves:  On  yesterday  I  remarked  that  I  did  not  have 
much  love  for  the  Regional  Conferences.  Sorroe  of  the  troubles 
that  I  referred  to  yesterday  are  coming  up  right  now.  I  am  in 
favor  of  the  amendment  that  is  proposed  by  Dr.  Du  Bose.  I 
hold  before  me  the  six  Regional  Conferences  as  they  have  been 
decided  upon,  and  Nos.  2,  3,  and  6  will  be  as  much  of  a  South- 
ern Methodist  Church  as  it  is  to-day.  If  you  are  not  going  to 
let  our  bishops  circulate  and  bind  our  union,  I  don't  see  that 
we  will  have  any  union.  There  will  be  the  Northern  Methodist 
Church  just  as  much  as  we  have  ever  had  it.  The  so-called 
unified  Church  will  be  the  most  sectional  Church  that  ever  was, 
the  most  sectional  Protestant  Church  in  the  United  States.  That 
is  just  what  it  will  be. 

Bishop  Cranston:  You  are  right.' 

E.  C.  Reeves:  Of  course,  I  am  right.  What  we  want  is  cir- 
culation of  the  bishops  through  the  Church  like  the  blood 
circulates  through  the  human  body.  Why,  my  dear  bishops,  I 
thought  you  were  a  kind  of  "rawhead  and  bloodybones"  who 
wished  to  down  us  until  I  met  you  and  associated  with  you  and 
got  to  love  you.  If  we  don't  allow  our  bishops  to  circulate 
through  the  whole  Church,  and  don't  allow  our  officers  to  cir- 
culate through  the  whole  Church,  we  will  have  a  sectional  Church 
worse  than  the  two  sectional  Churches  of  the  present  day.  I 
know  what  the  trouble  is  with  many  of  our  people.  There  is 
a  sectional  feeling  and  a  prejudice  and  a  lack  of  confidence 
North  and  South.  You  outnumber  us  two  to  one.  The  Re- 
gional Conference  system  as  proposed  is  an  effort  for  sectional 
self-control.  For  my  people,  in  the  minority,  it  is  an  attempt 
to  control  one-half  of  the  Regional  Conferences  as  a  protec- 
tion against  possible  aggressions  of  the  majority.  That  seems 
to  be  the  idea  of  my  good  friend  and  colleague,  Dr.  Lamar.  If 
my  bishops  can  not  go  up  into  Maine,  and  your  bishops  can  not 
go  into  Louisiana,  under  this  Regional  Conference  system,  what 
unity  can  there  be?  There  will  be  no  inter-mixture,  no  more 
than  there  is  to-day.  You  have  learned  a  great  deal  about  us 
down  South  at  these  meetings,  and  we  have  learned  a  great  deal 
about  you  too.  That  is  just  a  little  bit  of  circulation  that  we 
have  started,  and  we  want  to  make  that  circulation  general. 
I  don't  want  any  disjointed  Church  so  far  as  I  am  concerned. 
If  I  go  into  it,  I  go  into  it  heart  and  soul  and  without  reser- 
vation. I  am  not  going  to  be  scared,  because  you  have  two  to 
one  now  over  us,  that  I  won't  get  the  men  for  bishops  that 


132    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

I  want.  Whoever  comes  up,  they  are  mine.  We  can't  afford  to 
do  otherwise.  I  can  live  under  any  government  that  you 
can,  and  I  believe  you  will  do  what  you  believe  is  best  for 
general  Methodism.  I  will  take  you  and  I  want  you  to  take 
me.  We  must  have  that  spirit,  and  if  we  cannot  have  that 
spirit  let  us  quit  this  thing — it  is  a  farce. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  vote  is  on  Dr.  Black- 
well's  amendment. 

R.  E.  Blackwell :  Now  that  I  have  heard  Mr.  Watkins  and 
the  Colonel,  I  withdraw-  my  amendment.  I  was  aiming  to  get 
them  on  the  right  side,  and  now  that  they  are  all  right  I  with- 
draw it,  with  the  consent  of  my  seconds. 

Alexander  Simpson,  Jr. :  I  seconded  it  and  I  will  consent  to 
the  withdrawal. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Then  we  have  a  vote  on  the 
amendment  of  Dr.  Du  Bose. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  amendment  was  agreed  to  by  40  to  5. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  I  rise  to  a  question  of  personal  privilege.  My 
friend  Brother  Reeves,  with  whom  I  was  formerly  associated 
in  many  Church  bodies  of  the  South,  has  unintentionally  done  me 
a  very  grave  injustice.  He  has  stated  what  I  was  after  was 
sectionalism  and  that  would  defeat  any  plan  for  reunion.  I 
simply  appeal  to  my  brethren  here  who  have  been  with  me  in 
many  meetings  whether  in  any  of  those  general  meetings  they 
have  ever  seen  anything  in  me  that  showed  that  I  did  not  de- 
sire a  union  of  these  two  Churches. 

Several  V oices :  No. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  I  should  not  have  accepted  a  place  on  this 
Commission  unless  I  believed  honestly  that  it  was  desirable 
and  feasible  to  unite  these  two  Churches.  In  pursuance  of  that 
purpose  I  have  yielded  point  after  point  which  was  against  my 
judgment.  I  have  gone  just  as  far  as  I  can  go  to  the  opposite 
side.  I  do  not  expect  to  go  one  inch  farther.  If  you  will  unite 
on  the  ground  of  a  real  Regional  Conference  with  real  powers, 
and  not  a  mere  sham  Regional  Conference — if  you  will  settle  the 
question  of  the  colored  membership  in  this  Church  on  the  basis 
that  as  a  Southern  man  I  can  accept,  I  go  with  you.  The  re- 
port of  the  Committee  of  Eight  is  the  extent  to  which  I  can 
go  on  the  colored  question.  The  report  of  the  Regional  Confer- 
ences is  being  steadily  weakened,  and  I  do  not  know — I  will 
not  promise  and  I  cannot  promise,  with  my  view  of  what  is 
right  and  desirable,  to  defend  the  action  of  this  Commission  if 
you  emasculate  these  Regional  Conferences. 

Edgar  Blake:  Now  I  move  the  adoption  of  Subsection  7  as 
amended. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Ought  not  there  to  be  a 
change,  "and  provided  further" — There  is  no  proviso  before  that. 


St.  Louis  Meeting  133 
Edgar  Blake:  Yes,  there  is. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Yes;  that  is  all  right. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  section  as  amended  was  agreed  to. 

Edgar  Blake:  That  concludes  all  matters  connected  with  the 
report  of  the  Committee  on  Conferences. 

Frank  M.  Thomas:  I  would  like  to  move  a  reconsideration 
so  as  to  offer  an  amendment  to  Subsection  6  of  Section  2, 
'Towers,"  at  the  top  of  page  10. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  will  second  that  to  see  what  it  is. 

Frank  M.  Thomas:  It  now  reads: 

To  divide,  consolidate,  and  change  the  Regional  Conferences;  but  it 
shall  not  take  away  territory  from  any  Regional  Conference  without  its 
consent,  save  by  the  concurrent  vote  of  two  successive  General  Confer- 
ences; nor  shall  it  create  any  new  Regional  Conference  with  less  than 
500,000  members  in  full  connection. 

I  wish  to  amend  by  adding  at  the  close  of  that  clause  the  fol- 
lowing: "Provided  that  the  boundaries  of  a  Regional  Confer- 
ence shall  not  be  changed  without  its  consent  for  the  period  of 
four  quadrenniums  succeeding  the  adoption  of  this  Constitu- 
tion." I  move  a  reconsideration  in  order  to  present  that  amend- 
ment to  the  body. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  motion  to  reconsider  was  carried. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  amendment  is  now  be- 
fore you. 

Frank  M.  Thomas:  My  motive  in  doing  this  is  to  bring  about 
unification.  I  do  not  suppose  there  is  a  man  here  who  knows 
the  diverse  views  of  our  two  Churches  more  than  I  do,  having 
been  reared  on  the  border ;  and  the  people  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  if  they  go  into  this  reorganized  Church, 
will  have  to  be  persuaded  that  the  status  quo  will  be  main- 
tained, at  least  for  a  time.  I  think  that  in  nearly  all  of  the  consti- 
tutions, where  conflicting  interests  have  been  merged,  provisions 
have  been  made  in  regard  to  the  future.  Under  the  present 
plan  the  boundaries  of  a  Regional  Conference  cannot  be  changed 
without  its  consent,  but  by  the  action  of  two  General  Confer- 
ences. Now  suppose  it  became  expedient  to  change  the  bounda- 
ries of  a  Regional  Conference  within  the  next  twenty  years,  and 
the  Regional  Conference  did  not  desire  to  have  its  boundaries 
changed  at  the  time,  its  only  recourse  would  be  to  combine  with 
some  other  Regional  Conference,  and  then  it  could  call  for  a 
vote  and  by  a  vote  of  the  two  divide  it.  I  hope  no  such  thing 
will  occur,  but  sixteen  years,  or  "four  quadrenniums,  may  change 
the  complexion  of  the  two  Churches  entirely.  The  men  who  are 
familiar  with  the  struggle  and  bitternesses  of  fifty  years  ago  will 
have  passed  away.  The  men  who  come  back  from  the  great  war 
will  come  back  with  cosmopolitan  ideas  and  men  of  one  outlook ; 
and  all  I  ask  is  that  we  provide  that  for  a  period  of  four  quad- 


134    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

renniums  following  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  the  bounda- 
ries of  a  Regional  Conference  cannot  be  changed  without  its 
consent. 

W.  N.  Ainsworth :  I  think  Dr.  Thomas  overlooks  the  fact 
that  if  a  vote  shall  be  called  for  by  any  two  Regional  delegations 
the  enactment  of  any  measure  will  require  the  majority  of  the 
Regional  delegation.  It  seems  to  me  the  protection  at  that  point 
is  quite  sufficient. 

Frank  M.  Thomas:  I  do  not  read  that  language  just  in  that 
form.   You  have  here,  under  the  head  of  "Voting,"  the  following : 

Whenever  a  majority  of  each  of  two  Regional  delegations  shall  so  re- 
quest, a  vote  shall  be  taken  on  any  pending  motion  or  resolution,  except 
amendments  to  the  Constitution,  by  Regional  delegations,  and  it  shall  re- 
quire the  concurrence  of  a  majority  of  the  Regional  delegations — the  mem- 
bers thereof  voting  as  one  body — to  adopt  said  motion  or  resolution ;  pro- 
vided, however,  that  no  motion  or  resolution  shall  be  adopted  that  does 
not  receive  a  majority  vote  of  the  members  of  the  General  Conference 
present  and  voting. 

I  don't  think  that  protects  it. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  do  not  quite  see  the  force  of  Dr.  Thomas's 
suggestion.  It  hardly  seems  wise  to  tie  the  hands  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  for  that  length  of  time — four  quadrenniums. 
It  might  occur  to  the  minds  of  the  entire  Church,  with  one  ex- 
ception, that  it  was  desirable  to  make  some  changes  in  these 
Regional  Conference  boundaries,  and  I  would  not  like  to  see 
one  Regional  delegation  hold  up  that  matter  for  sixteen  years. 
I  think  we  should  keep  this  view  in  mind,  that  this  plan  that 
we  have  tentatively  agreed  to  for  the  areas  and  boundaries  of 
these  six  Regional  Conferences — we  cannot  hope  that  this  will 
be  perfect.  Changes  will  necessarily  have  to  be  made,  and  I 
would  not  like  to  shut  ourselves  up  and  make  it  impossible  to 
make  any  change  simply  because  one  of  our  Jurisdictions  didn't 
desire  to  change  when  all  of  the  other  Jurisdictions  might  think 
it  was  absolutely  necessary,  for  the  welfare  of  the  Church,  to 
do  so.  I  do  not  think  it  is  at  all  probable  that  there  will  be  any 
attempt  to  change  the  Regional  Conference  areas  at  the  first 
General  Conference.  There  might  be  in  the  second ;  and  if 
it  was  not  agreed  to  it  would  go  over  to  the  third,  and  would 
there  be  accomplished  by  concurrent  action  of  the  second  and 
third  General  Conferences.  It  seems  to  me  that  if  Dr.  Thomas 
would  reduce  the  proposition  by  one  quadrennium  that  would 
meet  the  practical  necessities  of  the  case,  because  it  is  doubt- 
ful if  any  desire  for  a  change  will  come  up  long  before  that ; 
but  it  may  at  that  time.  I  would  not  like  to  tie  the  hands  of  the 
General  Conference  for  sixteen  years. 

Frank  M.  Thomas :  I  think  it  was  John  Stuart  Blackie  who  said 
you  cannot  trim  human  nature  like  you  can  a  tree.    We  have 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


6,000,000  people  with  diverse  views,  and  we  can't  be  sure  what 
to  expect.  I  am  not  particular  about  the  time,  and  if  I  cannot 
get  sixteen  I  would  accept  twelve  years;  but  I  would  not  ac- 
cept less.  That  is  the  period  of  years  that  will  change  the  life 
of  the  Church. 

Edgar  Blake:  Make  it  three  quadrenniums. 

Frank  M.  Thomas :  I  will  accept  that. 

A  Commissioner:  The  general  principle  is  that  no  change 
ought  to  be  made  at  all  at  the  first  quadrennium;  and  I  think 
if  Dr.  Thomas  will  accept  two  quadrenniums  we  can  all  agree 
on  that. 

Edgar  Blake:  It  will  not  arise  before  the  third  quadrennium 
anyway. 

A  Commissioner:  All  right;  if  you  want  to  take  that,  I  am 
willing.    I  shall  be  out  of  the  way. 
Edgar  Blake:  We  hope  not. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny):  Then  it  reads  now:  "Pro- 
vided no  change  shall  be  made  in  the  Regional  Conference 
boundaries  before  three  quadrenniums." 

C.  M.  Bishop :  Without  the  consent  of  the  Regional  Conference 
in  question. 

Frank  M.  Thomas:  Yes. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  amendment  of  Dr.  Thomas  was 
agreed  to. 

A  further  vote  being  taken,  the  section  as  amended  was  re- 
adopted. 

H.  W.  Rogers:  I  am  about  to  ask  a  reconsideration  of  Sub- 
section 6,  Article  IX.,  on  page  9,  and  I  raise  the  question  of 
whether  that  provision  is  sufficiently  clear  and  distinct.   It  reads : 

Lay  delegates  shall  be  at  least  twenty-five  years  of  age  and  shall  have 
been  members  of  the  Church  for  at  least  five  years,  and  at  the  time  of 
their  election  and  at  the  time  of  the  session  of  the  General  Conference 
shall  be  members  of  a  pastoral  charge  within  the  bounds  of  the  Annual 
Conference  or  Central  Conference  which  elected  them. 

I  think  there  should  be  as  few  questions  of  a  constitutional  na- 
ture left  open  as  possible.  I  think  we  are  leaving  open  a  ques- 
tion which  may  be  troublesome,  and  which  miay  cost  us  a  good 
many  votes  in  this  matter  when  it  comes  to  be  presented  for 
adoption  by  our  Church.  That  clause  provides  this : 

Lay  delegates  shall  be  at  least  twenty-five  years  of  age  and  shall  have 
been  members  of  the  Church  for  at  least  five  years,  and  at  the  time  of 
their  election  and  at  the  time  of  the  session  of  the  General  Conference 
shall  be  members  of  a  pastoral  charge  within  the  bounds  of  the  Annual 
Conference  or  Central  Conference  which  elected  them. 

The  question  which  is  left  open  under  that  provision  which  may 
give  rise  to  controversy  is  whether  women  under  this  Consti- 
tuton  as  adopted  may  sit  in  the  General  Conference.    They  sit 


136   Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

in  our  General  Conference  and  they  do  not  sit  in  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Church,  South;  and  the  objection  has  been 
raised  already  against  this  proposed  constitution  that  it  shuts 
the  door  against  the  women  in  that  it  does  not  specifically  pro- 
vide one  way  or  the  other  as  to  whether  they  may  be  ad- 
mitted or  not.  We  may  understand  that  question  one  way 
and  you  may  understand  it  another.  I  think  it  ought  to  be 
settled  one  way  or  the  other,  and  if  you  will  allow  me  to  suggest — 

Frank  M.  Thomas:  Do  you  move  or  do  you  suggest? 

H.  W.  Rogers :  I  am  going  to  move  an  amendment  that  we 
insert  after  the  words  "Lay  delegates"  the  words  "shall  be 
chosen  from  any  of  the  members  of  the  Church  who  are  not 
members  of  an  Annual  Conference,  and  who,"  and  then  go 
on  as  it  is  drafted.  That  would  not  leave  the  question  in 
doubt  as  to  what  is  meant.  As  it  stands  now,  it  is  in  doubt. 
It  may  mean  one  thing  to  you  and  another  thing  to  us ;  it  ought 
to  mean  the  same  to  both. 

Bishop  McDowell:  I  second  the  motion  for  a  reconsideration. 

Bishop  Denny:  Why  not  come  out  and  say  "shall  be  men 
and  women"? 

H.  W.  Rogers :  I  like  this  better. 

Bishop  Hoss :  I  am  ready  to  vote  now. 

H.  W.  Rogers:  This  relates  simply  to  lay  delegates. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  That  does  not  quite  do  what  it  is  meant 
to  do.  In  1888,  when  the  discussion  was  up  in  our  Church, 
there  was  brought  up  a  decision  of  the  General  Conference 
that  all  persons  who  are  members  of  the  Church  and  not  mem- 
bers of  an  Annual  Conference  are  laymen,  and  a  lay  confer- 
ence somewhere  out  in  the  Northwest  proceeded  to  elect  Bishop 
Fowler  a  lay  delegate  to  the  General  Conference.  He  was  not 
a  member  of  the  Annual  Conference. 

Bishop  Hoss :  Bishop  Fowler  had  some  experience  in  his 
life.  He  was  over  in  Japan  presiding  and  there  was  order  and 
disorder,  and  he  said,  "If  any  of  you  think  you  can  do  this  bet- 
ter than  I  can,  stand  up,"  and  seven  Japs  stood  up  at  once. 

John  F.  Goucher:  I  would  like  to  raise  the  question  that  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  settled  its  policy,  and  to  my 
thinking  I  would  much  prefer  to  leave  this  question  for  the 
General  Conference.  The  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  will  meet  shortly  and  I  would  rather 
they  would  discuss  that  in  their  Conference. 

H.  W.  Rogers:  I  did  not  speak  simply  of  presenting  that. 
I  think  to  leave  this  thing  in  the  shape  it  is  now  is  going  to  pro- 
voke opposition  on  the  part  of  the  women  to  a  large  extent  in 
our  Church.  I  have  noticed  one  article  already  in  the  Christian 
Advocate  written  by  a  gentleman  from  St.  Louis  who  assails 
this  Constitution  on  that  specific  ground,  and  I  have  heard  some 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


137 


of  the  women  raise  the  same  question.  We  have  had  a  great 
controversy  in  our  Church  over  that  question,  and  it  was  not 
settled  until  1906,  and  this  Constitution  ought  to  settle  it  one 
way  or  the  other.  And  it  ought  to  say  what  we  mean,  and  not 
leave  it  to  judicial  interpretation,  one  view  taken  by  the  Church, 
North,  and  another  by  the  Church,  South,  and  then  send  it  to 
the  Judicial  Council  to  ascertain  what  is  meant  by  this  language. 
Why  not  settle  it  now  one  way  or  the  other? 

Frank  M.  Thomas:  I  want  to  make  a  remark  in  line  with 
what  Dr.  Goucher  and  Judge  Rogers  have  said.  Some  people 
down  South  have  recently  been  thinking  that  Judge  Rogers  is 
one  of  the  foremost  living  ecclesiastical  statesmen  because  of 
some  fine  work  he  has  done  heretofore.  I  think  some  of  them 
are  going  to  think  he  is  also  the  owner  of  the  famous  Pandora's 
box.  That  subject  may  be  a  burning  one  in  the  next  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  it 
would  hardly  be  the  wise  thing  for  this  Commission  to  antici- 
pate the  action  of  that  body. 

M.  L.  Walton:  I  agree  with  what  Dr.  Thomas  has  said. 
This  is  a  new  question  to  us,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned.  I  love 
the  women,  so  I  want  to  let  them  have  every  right  they  want, 
and  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  let  them  vote  in  the  Church  or  in 
the  State ;  but  I  know  there  will  be  considerable  opposition  in 
our  General  Conference,  and  I  would  like  to  try  this  thing  out 
for  four  years  to  see  whether  we  can  get  accustomed  to  the 
rights  of  these  good  women.  I  don't  think  now  is  the  time 
to  bring  the  matter  up,  and  I  trust  the  matter  will  not  be  in- 
sisted upon.  I  think  it  will  jeopardize  this  great  question,  es- 
pecially the  carrying  of  it  successfully  through  our  General  Con- 
ference, and  I  do  not  want  to  see  that  done. 

Bishop  Hamilton:  I  can  agree  with  Judge  Walton  perfectly, 
that  it  would  have  been  well  if  this  question  had  not  been  raised, 
and  that  it  had  gone  just  as  it  stands  in  that  paragraph.  But 
once  having  been  raised,  it  is  sure  to  go  through  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  Now  if,  in  addition  to  the  criticism  that  will 
be  raised  as  to  the  sections  concerning  the  connections,  you  should 
array  against  you  all  the  women  of  the  Methodist  Church,  you 
will  never  carry  this  thing  through.  It  is  a  misfortune  that  it 
should  have  been  raised  at  all :  if  you  brethren  would  defeat 
it  now  or  pass  it  in  such  a  way  that  you  want  to  wait  for  your 
General  Conference  to  act,  it  would  still  be  a  misfortune.  We 
never  can  get  back  to  the  conditions  that  existed  in  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  concerning  two-thirds  of  its  members 
who  raise  the  salaries  of  their  preachers  and  are  largely  in 
charge  of  the  Church's  interests.  Go  to  New  England,  for 
instance.  I  will  show  you  whole  towns  on  the  coast  where 
every  member  of  the  Official  Board  is  a  woman,  because  the 


138    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

men  are  at  sea,  and  I  will  show  you  towns  in  New  England 
which  have  to  have  the  town  government  run  by  women ;  and 
now  that  the  thing  is  raised,  and  with  woman  suffrage  sweep- 
ing through  the  country,  I  will  be  sorry  to  have  it  go  out  now 
that  there  was  hesitation  on  the  part  of  the  Commission  to  pre- 
serve the  rights  of  the  women  because,  as  surely  as  you  live, 
if  you  do  not  carry  out  in  your  General  Conference  this  very 
thing,  we  can  never  unite. 

M.  L.  Walton :  My  good  Bishop  Hamilton,  I  glory  in  the 
women  just  as  much  as  you  do,  and  in  the  great  work  they  have 
done ;  but  I  don't  see  why  this  matter  should  go  out  of  this  room. 
We  are  certainly  all  friends,  this  is  an  executive  session,  and 
we  certainly  ought  to  be  able  to  possess  our  souls  in  patience 
and  at  the  same  time  control  our  tongues  as  well  as  our  pens, 
and  there  is  no  occasion  to  give  this  matter  publicity.  A  great 
many  of  us  do  not  want  to  assume,  or  be  put  in  the  attitude  of 
assuming,  that  it  is  a  foregone  conclusion  how  this  question  will 
be  determined ;  but  I  do  not  think  our  people  should  be  put  to 
the  test  with  reference  to  the  innovation  at  this  time,  when  the 
result  is  uncertain  and  when  it  may  defeat  the  object  we  all 
have.  We  can  recognize  the  rights  of  the  women  in  a  great 
many  respects ;  but  this  matter  must  be  held  in  abeyance  until 
the  time  arrives,  and  when  that  time  arrives  we  can  handle  it. 

Bishop  Hamilton :  This  cannot  be  kept  a  secret ;  and  if,  hav- 
ing been  raised,  we  go  out  from  here  and  leave  the  question 
in  doubt  you  will  have  all  the  active  women  in  this  country 
talking  about  it  from  one  end  of  the  Church  to  the  other. 

H.  W.  Rogers :  It  has  been  suggested  that  by  raising  this 
question  I  have  thrown  a  firebrand  amongst  you.  Let  me  tell 
you,  the  question  is  bound  to  be  raised,  even  if  we  don't  raise 
it  here.  After  we  have  adjourned  it  is  bound  to  be  raised,  and 
we  had  better  meet  it. 

C.  M.  Bishop:  I  wish  to  offer  as  a  substitute  for  the  amend- 
ment of  Judge  Rogers,  the  following,  so  as  to  make  the  section 
read :  "Lay  delegates  shall  be  chosen  under  regulations  adopted 
by  each  Regional  Conference  for  itself ;  but  they  shall  be  at 
least  twenty-five  years  of  age,"  etc. 

Bishop  Denny:  If  you  will  put  that  "thirty-five  years  of  age," 
you  will  settle  the  whole  question.  [Laughter.] 

C.  M.  Bishop:  It  seems  to  me  this  is  the  only  possible  safe 
way  to  deal  with  this  question  now,  one  Church  being  com- 
mitted now  constitutionally  to  one  view  of  the  matter  and  the 
other  Church  much  wrought  up  concerning  it ;  and  the  Regional 
Conferences  representing  the  South  will  thus  have  a  right  to  de- 
cide for  themselves  whether  their  delegates  elected  shall  be  men 
or  women.  For  myself,  I  do  not  see  why  we  cannot  allow  this 
question  to  remain  with  the  Regional  Conferences  as  to  whether 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


139 


or  not  men  or  women  or  men  and  women  shall  be  equally  en- 
titled to  admission  to  membership  in  the  General  Conference. 

Bishop  Cooke:  Would  not  the  difficulty  there  be  that  you 
would  be  depriving  some  of  the  people  in  our  Church? 

C.  M.  Bishop:  No,  I  think  not;  because  we  would  be  leaving 
to  the  Regions  in  which  they  would  have  a  right  to  express 
their  judgment  the  question  of  the  determination. 

Bishop  Cooke:  Does  not  that  amount  to  the  same  thing? 
You  take  a  certain  power  and  you  make  it  an  optional  power. 

C.  M.  Bishop:  There  is  a  delicate  question  there.  There  is  no 
doubt  about  that;  but  the  very  large  majority  in  some  of  the 
Southern  Regional  Conferences  would  strongly  oppose  tne  elec- 
tion of  women  as  delegates,  and  I  think  it  would  defeat  the 
whole  business  in  the  Southern  General  Conference  if  we  were 
now  to  declare  explicitly  for  women  delegates  or  the  possibility 
of  women  delegates. 

Edwin  M.  Randall :  What  does  Dr.  Bishop  propose  to  do 
with  the  300,000  women  of  our  Church  who  would  go  into  a 
certain  Southern  Regional  section  and  would  be  disfranchised 
under  the  arrangement  he  proposes? 

C.  M.  Bishop:  I  am  not  disfranchising  anybody.  I  leave  it 
to  the  Regional  Conferences  to  decide. 

Bishop  McDowell:  A  word  upon  this  subject:  Judge  Rogers 
has  introduced  here  a  question  which  has  been  widely  raised 
elsewhere  since  the  tentative  plans  were  published.  His  intro- 
duction of  this  resolution  is  for  the  purpose  of  making  it  per- 
fectly clear  to  the  Churches  what  qualifications  will  be  required 
and  expected  of  delegates  to  the  General  Conference.  That 
question  is  actually  already  on.  This  involves  a  change  of 
policy  either  on  one  side  of  the  fence  or  the  other.  In  one  case 
it  involves  the  extension  of  the  privilege  to  persons  who  do 
not  now  possess  it  and  in  the  other  case  it  may  involve  a  with- 
drawal of  the  privilege  from  those  who  do  possess  it — namely, 
the  privilege  of  membership  in  the  General  Conference.  I 
think  that  the  thing  for  us  to  do  is  to  adopt  Judge  Rogers's 
amendment  in  substance,  whether  the  exact  form  is  presented  or 
whether  the  form  is  as  proposed  by  Dr.  Bishop ;  but  in  some 
form  we  ought  to  vote  upon  it.  I  do  not  agree  that  Dr.  Bish- 
op's proposal  quite  covers  the  case;  for  surely  there  would  be, 
first  of  all,  the  question  that  is  raised  by  Dr.  Randall  of  what 
would  be  a  real  deprivation  to  three  or  four  hundred  thousand 
women  who  would  be  in  Jurisdictions  overwhelmingly  Southern, 
in  case  those  Regional  Conferences  decline  to  elect  women  as 
delegates  to  the  General  Conference;  but  if  the  whole  North- 
ern tier  of  Regional  Conferences  continue  to  elect  women  as 
delegates  to  the  General  Conference,  you  would  have  the  strange 
anomaly  of  a  General  Conference  with  women  from  one  lot  of 


140    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

Regional  Conferences,  while  a  certain  other  lot  of  Regional 
Conferences  did  not  send  them,  and  that  would  be  a  very  anoma- 
lous condition. 

Bishop  Cranston :  And  it  wouldn't  last  long. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  do  not  think  it  would ;  but  we  might 
just  as  well  pass  on  it  now  as  any  other  time.  We  ought  to  say 
that  it  is  our  judgment  with  reference  to  this  matter  that  the 
lay  delegates  to  the  General  Conference  shall  be  either  men  or 
women  who  meet  the  qualifications.  If  there  is  any  new  world 
that  the  new  Church  must  adapt  itself  to,  it  is  the  new  world 
that  affects  womanhood. 

Bishop  Hoss:  We  might  just  as  well  pass  a  resolution  that 
in  all  other  respects  the  Discipline  of  the  Church,  South,  shall  be 
changed  to  conform  to  the  Discipline  of  the  Church,  North. 
Most  of  our  Southern  Commissioners  seem  to  agree  to  that, 
but  I  do  not.  You  may  think  you  can  settle  it  by  a  vote,  but  I 
tell  you  now  you  cannot.  I  think  if  you  adopt  this  amendment 
you  will  just  simply  blot  out  the  Southern  Methodist  Church. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  With  my  good  friend  Dr.  Thomas,  I  re- 
gret that  Dr.  Rogers  did  open  up  a  Pandora's  box  here.  You 
see  the  trouble  is,  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  is  just  three  weeks  off,  and  this  ques- 
tion will  certainly  come  before  that  Conference  and  it 
may  be  for  that  reason  some  gentlemen  here  would  hesitate  to 
express  themselves.  [Laughter.]  Now,  that  is  not  a  facetious 
remark;  it  is  a  real  serious  remark.  It  does  embarrass  some  of 
us.  The  fact  is,  I  am  embarrassed  myself.  Do  you  not  see 
that  I  am,  and  very  greatly  embarrassed,  over  this  matter?  I 
could  wish  you  could  see  your  way  clear  to  adopt  the  substi- 
tute of  Dr.  Bishop.  I  think  this  is  a  good  middle-way.  It  would 
enable  you  to  say  to  your  women  that  any  rights  they  have  now 
will  not  be  taken  from  them,  and  it  will  enable  us  to  say  to  our 
good  women  that  all  the  rights  they  have  will  be  preserved 
and  any  others  they  may  want  they  shall  also  have.  I  do  not 
suppose  a  large  minority  of  us  at  any  time  have  thought  that 
the  rights  of  your  women  now  were  to  be  taken  from  them  by 
unified  Methodism.  For  one,  I  have  never  thought  anything 
of  that  kind.  I  told  you  you  had  embarrassed  me,  and  I  am 
so  badly  embarrassed  that  I  hardly  know  how  I  can  come  to  the 
sentence  I  am  about  to  utter ;  but  I  must  confess  I  have  sur- 
rendered to  the  women.  This  question  will  come  before  our 
approaching  General  Conference,  as  I  said  a  moment  ago.  It 
is  going  to  be  somewhat  embarrassing.  I  wish  we  could  have 
left  it  the  way  it  was.  I  wonder  if  it  would  satisfy  all  the  con- 
ditions, and  relieve  any  possible  embarrassment,  if  the  brethren 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church — if  the  time  comes  that  we 
here  in  St.  Louis  are  to  vote  as  separate  Commissions — might  in 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


141 


taking  their  vote  say  that  they  agreed  on  conditions  that  no 
rights  that  the  women  now  have  are  to  be  taken  from  them  ? 

Bishop  Cranston:  How  would  this^do:  "The  qualification  of 
the  lay  delegates  to  the  General  Conference  shall  be  as  they 
are  now  defined  by  the  respective  two  Churches  concerned," 
and  leave  it  there  until  your  Church  takes  some  further  action? 

Bishop  Mouzon:  That  would  not  get  anywhere. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  certainly  would  not  want  to  be  a  party  to 
any  agreement  that  would  deprive  the  women  of  our  own 
Church  of  their  rights  in  this  particular  matter.  At  the  same 
time  I  do  not  want  to  force  upon  the  Church,  South,  a  thing 
that  is  not  agreeable  to  them.  It  seems  to  me  that  we 
could  cover  the  matter  by  entering  into  a  formal  agreement, 
not  to  be  included  in  the  Constitution  but  to  go  along  with  it 
as  sundry  other  agreements  will  have  to  go — an  agreement 
to  this  effect,  that  the  women  members  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  shall  be  eligible  to  membership  in  the 
Central  and  General  Conferences.  That  is  not  in  exactly  the 
form  the  agreement  should  be  put,  but  that  is  the  substance 
of  it.  Bishop  McDowell  says,  "Provided  they  can  be  elected," 
etc.  A  formal  agreement  of  that  character  will  fully  protect 
our  women,  and  at  the  same  time  not  force  anything  upon 
the  Church,  South,  ahead  of  the  program  in  this  matter.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  I  think  before  we  could  get  together  in  the  re- 
organized General  Conference  the  whole  question  of  women's 
relationship  to  the  Church  and  State  will  have  been  settled  for 
us  outside  of  the  Church.  In  addition  to  that,  there  is  another 
provision  which  says  that  the  General  Conference  shall  be  the 
judge  of  the  election,  returns,  and  qualifications  of  its  own  mem- 
bers. It  will  be  clearly  within  the  power  of  the  General  Con- 
ference of  the  reorganized  Church  to  provide  that  women  may 
be  eligible  to  membership.  But  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
matter  has  been  raised,  and  some  decision  ought  to  be  reached, 
it  appears  to  me,  from  the  light  we  now, have,  that  the  best 
way  to  deal  with  it  is  in  the  manner  I  have  indicated. 

Bishop  McDowell:  I  rise  simply  to  say  that  in  my  judgment 
we  should  not  hurry  to  vote  on  this  matter  this  evening.  We 
have  three  or  four  suggestions.  Nobody  wants  to  embarrass 
anybody  else.  I  do  not  want  to  take  snap  judgment,  and  my 
mood  is  to  move  that  with  this  subject  before  us  we  adjourn 
until  to-morrow  morning.  I  am  willing  to  have  Judge  White 
address  us,  but  I  do  not  want  to  hurry  to  a  conclusion. 

H.  H.  White :  My  remarks  will  be  very  short.  To  use  a 
phrase  that  is  current  in  my  country,  but  which  some  of  you 
may  not  have  heard,  the  Judge  seemed  to  have  stirred  up  more 
rabbits  than  he  can  catch.  I  don't  believe  our  Southern  Com- 
missioners need  to  be  afraid  of  this  subject  in  any  sense  what- 


142    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

ever.  I  am  somewhat  of  a  Southerner.  I  come  from  a  pretty 
far  distant  part  of  the  South,  but  I  could  tell  you  this,  that  the 
leaven  of  woman's  suffrage  has  permeated  Louisiana  very 
thoroughly  and  I  believe  it  has  every  other  Southern  State,  and 
if  we  want  to  popularize  the  proceedings  of  this  Commission  the 
very  strongest  thing  we  can  do  is  to  do  what  a  gentleman  from 
South  Carolina  told  me  he  did,  if  you  will  permit  a  short  an- 
ecdote. He  said  he  had  become  acquainted  by  mail  and  by  let- 
ter with  a  lady  to  whom  he  afterwards  became  engaged.  The 
courtship  had  gone  on  for  some  time  in  that  way,  and  finally  he 
decided  that  he  would  go  down  to  South  Carolina  and  see  his 
fiancee  in  person.  He  said  he  went,  he  got  out  at  a  big  gate,  he 
walked  up  between  the  trees  and  up  the  steps  to  a  fine  colonial 
mansion,  and  he  said  his  heart  was  beating  pitapat  and  he  was 
almost  scared  to  death  when  he  heard  the  rustle  of  a  silk  dress 
coming  down  the  hall,  and  he  didn't  know  whether  to  run  or 
not,  and  then  he  just  made  up  his  mind  that  he  would  go  in  and 
take  the  bu —  the  cow  by  the  horns  and  have  the  matter  out. 
So  I  believe  the  best  thing  that  we  can  do  now  is  just  to  take 
the  cow  by  the  horns  and  let  them  know  that  we  believe  in 
women's  suffrage  as  a  matter  of  State  policy  and  in  the  Church. 
I  do  not  believe  the  proceedings  of  this  Commission  will  cause 
unification  to  lose  one  vote  in  the  South  on  that  account.  Those 
are  my  honest  and  sincere  sentiments  and  my  opinion.  I  be- 
lieve we  should  fix  it  that  way,  and  I  don't  care  whether  you 
write  in  the  words  "ladies  and  gentlemen"  or  "male  and  female," 
or  any  sex  whatever. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  move  that  a  Committee  of  Four,  two  from 
each  Commission,  be  appointed  to  consider  this  matter  and  re- 
port upon  the  same  at  the  session  to-morrow  morning. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

Bishop  Cranston  announced  the  two  committeemen  from 
the  Church,  North,  as  Bishop  W.  F.  McDowell  and  Rev.  J.  W. 
Van  Cleve. 

Bishop  Mouzon  announced  the  names  of  the  committeemen 
from  the  Church,  South,  as  Dr.  Frank  M.  Thomas  and  Judge 
H.  H.  White. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  now  desire  to  amend  the  motion  to  adjourn 
until  to-morrow  morning,  and  I  move  that  when  we  adjourn 
we  adjourn  to  meet  for  a  session  this  evening  to  continue  from 
eight  to  ten,  and  my  reason  for  making  that  motion  is  as  fol- 
lows: We  have  voted  to  have  the  final  adjournment  at  five 
o'clock  Saturday.  That  leaves  us  only  two  days  for  work  after 
to-day.  We  have  covered  a  good  deal  of  this  plan  during  the 
day,  but  much  more  remains  to  be  considered,  and  I  feel  that 
if  we  could  meet  this  evening  for  two  hours  we  could  perfect 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


143 


a  plan  for  the  Judicial  Council  and  get  that  completed  and  out 
of  the  way,  at  least  completed  tentatively,  so  as  to  leave  us 
the  entire  remaining  time  of  two  days  to  consider  the  status 
of  the  colored  membership  and  such  other  matters  as  should 
receive  our  consideration.  I  think  we  shall  need  every  moment 
of  our  time. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

Bishop  Mouzon:  In  view  of  the  very  heavy  duties  of  Rev. 
Frank  M.  Thomas,  as  Secretary,  he  requests  to  be  excused  from 
service  on  this  Committee  of  Four,  and  in  place  of  Dr.  Thomas 
I  will  ask  Brother  W.  J.  Young  to  serve. 

After  benediction  by  Bishop  Cranston,  the  Joint  Commission 
adjourned.  v  j-f.  j 

Evening  Session. 

The  Commission  met  pursuant  to  adjournment  and  was  called 
to  order  by  Bishop  Earl  Cranston  at  8:10  p.m. 

The  hymn,  "Jesus>  the  very  thought  of  Thee,"  was  sung. 

Prayer  was  offered  by  Dr.  Randall. 

The  hymn,  "Sweet  hour  of  prayer,"  was  sung. 

The  minutes  of  the  last  session  were  read  and  approved. 

Bishop  Mouzon  took  the  chair  as  presiding  officer. 

The  roll  was  called  and  showed  the  following  attendance : 
Bishops  E.  D.  Mouzon,  W.  B.  Murrah,  Earl  Cranston,  J.  W. 
Hamilton,  W.  F.  McDowell,  F.  D.  Leete,  R.  J.  Cooke.  Minis- 
ters: F.  M.  Thomas,  W.  J.  Young,  J.  M.  Moore,  C.  M.  Bish- 
op, T.  N.  Ivey,  A.  F.  Watkins,  H.  M.  Du  Bose,  W.  N.  Ains- 
worth,  A.  J.  Lamar,  Edgar  Blake,  D.  G.  Downey,  J.  F.  Gouch- 
er,  R.  E.  Jones,  A.  J.  Nast,  Frank  Neff,  E.  M.  Randall,  J.  W. 
Van  Cleve,  J.  J.  Wallace.  Laymen:  M.  L.  Walton,  H.  N. 
Snyder,  P.  D.  Maddin,  R.  S.  Hyer,  J.  H.  Reynolds,  R.  E. 
Blackwell,  J.  R.  Pepper,  E.  C.  Reeves,  H.  H.  White,  E.  W. 
Hines,  G.  W.  Brown,  A.  W.  Harris,  C.  W.  Kinne,  I.  G.  Penn, 
I.  E.  Robinson,  H.  W.  Rogers,  Alexander  Simpson,  Jr.,  J.  R. 
Joy.    Rev.   C.  M.  Stuart,  alternate. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  What  is  before  the  Com- 
mission ? 

Bishop  Cranston:  The  work  of  the  evening  was  to  be  on 
the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Judicial  Council. 
Bishop  Cooke :  We  begin  at  Section  4,  on  page  1 3 : 

Section  4.  Members  of  the  Judicial  Council  shall  serve  for  eight  (8) 
years,  or  until  their  successors  are  confirmed,  and  shall  be  subject  to  re- 
election. The  term  of  each  member  (except  as  provided  in  Section  10) 
shall  expire  at  the  close  of  the  second  General  Conference  succeeding  that 
at  which  his  term  began ;  provided,  that  the  ministerial  members  chosen 
at  the  first  election  from  the  even-numbered  Jurisdictions  and  the  lay 
members  chosen  at  the  first  election  from  the  odd-numbered  Jurisdictions 


144    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

shall  serve  for  four  years,  and  their  terms  shall  expire  at  the  close  of 
the  General  Conference  next  following  that  at  which  their  terms  began. 
It  is  provided,  further,  that  the  term  of  the  members  of  the  first  Judicial 
Council  shall  begin  at  the  time  of  their  election  and  confirmation  by  the 
General  Conference. 

I  move  the  adoption  of  this  section. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  carried. 

Bishop  Cooke :  The  next  is  page  14,  under  the  head  of  'Tow- 
ers," Section  7(1): 

The  Judicial  Council  shall  have  full  power  to  review,  upon  appeal  on 
constitutional  grounds,  the  acts  of  the  General  and  Regional  Conferences, 
the  records  and  documents  transmitted  to  it  from  Judicial  Conferences, 
to  hear  and  determine  questions  of  law  and  all  other  appeals  coming  to 
it  in  course  of  lawful  procedure  from  Annual  Conferences,  from  Judicial 
and  Regional  Conferences,  and  from  the  General  Conference;  provided, 
that  no  appeal  from  any  Conference  shall  be  entertained  unless  the  same 
has  been  taken  by  at  least  one-fifth  of  the  Conference. 

May  I  say,  in  order  that  it  shall  not  be  overlooked,  you  will 
note  on  this,  as  on  page  13  on  the  composition  of  the  Judicial 
Council,  that  the  Central  Conferences  have  as  yet  no  representa- 
tion nor  have  any  of  the  other  Conferences  that  are  yet  to  be 
formed.  Of  course  we  could  not  provide  for  what  we  did  not 
have.  I  move  the  adoption  of  this  section. 
The  motion  was  seconded. 

John  M.  Moore :  I  would  be  very  glad  if  Bishop  Cooke  would 
read  the  second  section  and  then  allow  me  to  read  a  different 
statement,  which  I  think  will  have  exactly  the  same  ideas 
and  will  put  these  very  Powers  in  a  little  different  form.  Read 
Subsection  2  and  then  I  will  offer  a  substitute  for  the  whole. 

Bishop  Cooke  (Reading)  : 

(2)  The  Judicial  Council  shall  also  have  power  to  arrest  an  action  of 
a  connectional  board  or  other  connectional  body,  when  such  action  is 
brought  before  it  by  appeal  by  one-fifth  of  the  members  of  said  body  or 
by  the  general  superintendents.  In  all  cases  the  decision  of  the  Judicial 
Council  shall  be  final ;  provided,  that  if  on  a  constitutional  question  there 
shall  be  a  majority  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the  General  Con- 
ference disapproving  a  decision  of  the  Judicial  Council,  its  construction 
of  the  question  involved  shall  then  be  sent  to  the  Annual  Conferences 
for  final  approval  or  disapproval,  as  provided  in  Subsection  II,  Section  2. 
Article  IX.,  of  the  Constitution. 

John  M.  Moore:  I  would  like  to  offer  this,  which  I  hope  will 
be  accepted  as  a  substitute;  and  as  I  read  I  think  you  can  fol- 
low with  your  papers  what  I  am  trying  to  bring  out : 

The  Judicial  Council  shall  have  full  and  final  power  as  follows: 

1.  To  review,  upon  appeal,  the  acts  of  the  General  and  Regional  Con- 
ferences and  determine  whether  or  not  they  involve  the  Constitution  or 
require  for  the  enactment  of  those  found  to  affect  the  Constitution  the 
process  by  which  amendments  to  the  Constitution  arc  made. 

2.  To  review  any  action  of  any  Connectional  Board  or  body  which 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


145 


may  be  brought  before  it  by  an  appeal  of  one-fifth  of  the  members  of 
said  board  or  body  or  by  the  general  superintendents;  and  should  an 
action  be  found  not  to  be  within  the  power  of  said  Board  or  body  as 
defined  in  the  law  of  the  Church,  said  action  shall  be  arrested  until  de- 
termined otherwise  by  the  General  Conference. 

3.  To  hear  and  determine,  upon  appeal,  the  questions  of  law  involved 
and  decisions  made  by  the  presiding  officers  of  Annual  Conferences, 
Regional  Conferences,  and  General  Conferences,  and  other  appeals  com- 
ing from  and  through  the  aforesaid  bodies  in  course  of  lawful  procedure 
— [such  as  would  come  up  from  Quarterly  Conferences,  things  of  that 
kind]. 

4.  To  hear  and  determine  appeals  from  Trial  Committees  of  Judicial 
Conferences  or  Annual  Conferences  upon  the  records  and  documents  in 
the  cases  and  submitted  from  said  Committee  to  the  Judicial  Council. 

Those  are  really  the  four  powers  included  in  these  two  para- 
graphs, and  I  believe  in  stating  them  just  in  this  form  so  that 
they  will  stand  out  succinctly,  so  that  every  one  can  see  the 
four  powers  that  the  Judicial  Council  has. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  As  I  caught  the  reading,  you  leave  out  the 
power  of  the  Judicial  Council  to  review  the  decisions  of  the 
Annual  Conference? 

John  M.  Moore:  No,  that  is  in  the  first:  "To  review,  upon  ap- 
peal, the  acts  of  the  General  and  Regional  Conferences,  and 
determine  whether  or  not  they  involve  the  Constitution  and  re- 
quire for  the  enactment  of  those  found  to  affect  the  Consti- 
tion  the  process  by  which  amendments  to  the  Constitution  are 
made." 

Bishop  Murrah:  You  propose  that  as  a  substitute  for  how 
much  of  it? 

John  M.  Moore:  This  that  I  have  read  I  propose  for  the 
Powers  you  have  in  Subsections  1  and  2.  I  suggest  this  as 
I  have  read  it  out. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  Wherein  in  your  four  subsections 
do  you  cover  the  question  of  a  disagreement  between  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  and  the  Judicial  Council  in  the  decision  of  a 
constitutional  question?  You  see  to-day  we  voted  that  if  the 
General  Conference  did  not  agree  that  the  question  would  go 
to  the  Annual  Conferences  and  by  a  two-thirds  vote  they 
might  decide  in  favor  of  the  General  Conference.  I  did  not 
catch  anything  on  that  in  your  reading  of  the  substitute. 

John  M.  Moore :  It  is  not  in  there.    I  didn't  want  it  in  there. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  I  supposed  it  was  not  in  there. 

John  M.  Moore:  I  meant  that  to  go  in  at  the  end  of  the 
first  statement.  If  this  were  to  be  referred  to  the  General  Con- 
ference, then,  of  course,  you  would  have  to  put  it  there;  but 
what  I  provide  for  is  that  this  Committee  will  determine  wheth- 
er or  not  it  affects  the  Constitution. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr.:  This  does  not  touch  the  point  we  passed 
upon  which  should  be  in  there.  If  the  Judicial  Council  de- 
10 


146    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

cides  a  question  one  way  and  the  General  Conference  dis- 
agrees with  that  decision,  then  the  Annual  Conferences  should 
by  a  two-thirds  vote  be  entitled  to  override  the  action  of  the 
Judicial  Council. 

John  M.  Moore:  The  point  I  am  making  is  that  you  are  sub- 
mitting this  to  the  Annual  Conferences.  If  the  Judicial  Coun- 
cil decides  that  the  matter  affects  the  Constitution,  then  it  must 
go  to  the  Annual  Conference.  If  it  reports  to  the  General  Con- 
ference and  the  General  Conference  says,  "No,  you  are  mis- 
taken about  that,  it  does  not  affect  the  Constitution,"  we  will 
decide  the  matter  by  sending  it  down  to  the  Annual  Conferences. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  The  way  you  have  it  there,  the  mere 
fact  that  the  Judicial  Council  says  it  does  affect  the  Consti- 
tution forces  that  to  go  down  to  the  Annual  Conference,  wheth- 
er everybody  agrees  or  not. 

John  M.  Moore:  If  the  General  Conference  disagrees,  you 
send  it  down? 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  But  if  everybody  agrees  you  should  not 
send  it  down? 

John  M.  Moore:  I  don't  say  that. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  That  is  the  way  I  understand  it.  Read 
it  again. 

John  M.  Moore  (Reading)  :  To  review,  upon  appeal,  the  acts 
of  the  General  and  Regional  Conferences  and  to  determine 
whether  they  involve  the  Constitution  and  require  for  the  enact- 
ment of  those  found  to  affect  the  Constitution  the  process 
by  which  amendments  to  the  Constitution  are  made. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  But  suppose  the  General  Conference 
agrees,  it  still  must  go,  the  way  you  have  it  worded  there. 

John  M.  Moore:  I  will  just  simply  say  that  I  would  not 
object  to  this  other  matter  being  put  in  there.  This  was  made 
to  simplify,  and  I  did  not  think  it  was  necessary  to  put  that 
in ;  and  in  view  of  the  action  you  took  this  afternoon,  I  would 
have  to  add  just  as  set  forth  in  the  other  paragraph. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  This  is  offered  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  Subsections  1  and  2. 

Frank  M.  Thomas :  I  submit,  taking  up  Section  1,  that  the 
substitute  offered  by  Dr.  Moore  is  not  as  clear  and  as  legal 
in  its  phraseology  as  the  original,  nor  does  it  cover  one  or 
two  important  points.  I  will  read  them  so  that  you  can  get 
the  statement.   The  substitute  is  as  follows : 

To  review,  upon  appeal,  the  acts  of  the  General  Conference  that  de- 
termine whether  or  not  they  involve  the  Constitution  and  require  for  the 
enactment  of  those  found  to  affect  the  Constitution  the  process  by  which 
amendments  to  the  Constitution  are  made. 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


147 


Now  Subsection  1,  under  "Powers,"  reads  as  follows: 

The  Judicial  Council  shall  have  full  power  to  review,  upon  appeal  on 
constitutional  grounds,  the  acts  of  the  Generaland  Regional  Conferences, 
the  records  and  documents  transmitted  to  it  from  Judicial  Conferences, 
to  hear  and  determine  questions  of  law  and  all  other  appeals  coming  to 
it  in  course  of  lawful  procedure  from  Annual  Conferences,  from  Judicial 
and  Regional  Conferences,  and  from  the  General  Conference ;  provided, 
that  no  appeal  from  any  Conference  shall  be  entertained  unless  the  same 
has  been  taken  by  at  least  one-fifth  of  the  Conference. 

I  think  this  latter  is  much  clearer  and  stronger.  There  is  some 
merit  in  Dr.  Moore's  suggestion  in  his  breaking  it  up  and  get- 
ting it  a  little  more  clearly  stated ;  but  in  the  third  place  I  call 
attention  to  a  criticism  pointed  out  by  Dr.  Lamar.  According 
to  the  plain  construction  of  the  language  here  in  the  third  para- 
graph, a  General  Conference  per  se  could  differ  from  the  Ju- 
dicial Council  in  its  construction  of  the  law  and  put  it  into 
the  Discipline.  [Reading:] 

Provided,  that  all  construction  of  law  which  affects  any  paragraph  of 
the  Discipline  shall  be  subject  to  the  General  Conference  for  its  approval 
or  rejection  and,  when  approved,  for  incorporation  in  the  paragraph 
affected. 

So  the  Judicial  Council  might  decide  the  matter  of  legality  of 
a  disciplinary  provision  and  the  General  Conference  turn  around 
and  veto  it  and  put  it  in  the  Discipline. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Is  the  substitute  seconded? 
I  did  not  hear  any  one  second  it. 

Bishop  Cooke:  I  move  the  adoption  of  Section  7  (1)  as  read. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  don't  think  we  are  quite  ready  to  adopt 
that,  because  it  is  not  quite  complete.  [Reading:] 

The  Judicial  Council  shall  have  full  power  to  review,  upon  appeal  on 
constitutional  grounds,  the  acts  of  the  General  and  Regional  Conferences. 

We  ought  to  have  in  mind  that  we  have  to  provide  that  there 
shall  be  Central  Conferences,  and  these  Central  Conferences 
are  not  provided  for  here. 

Bishop  Cooke:  I  mentioned  that. 

Edgar  Blake:  We  have  already  agreed  that  there  shall  be 
certain  Central  Conferences  with  certain  powers,  and  we  have 
contemplated  certain  Jurisdictional  General  Conferences.  It 
seems  to  me  that  the  Central  Conferences  ought  to  be  included 
here,  and  also  the  Jurisdictional  General  Conference  should  be 
named  here,  at  least  tentatively,  with  the  rest.  Of  course,  if 
we  do  not  require  provisions  for  the  Jurisdictional  General 
Conferences,  it  falls  out  naturally;  but  I  think  some  provision 
should  be  made  here,  so  that  we  may  know  exactly  where  we  are. 

Bishop  Cooke:  I  have  already  referred  to  that,  and  the  body 
understands  that  the  representation  from  the  Conference  bodies 


148    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

was  not  put  in  here,  because  our  action  was  not  completed 
concerning  those  Conferences.  We  cannot  do  anything  now 
until  certain  other  matters  are  finally  settled,  and  when  those 
other  matters  are  finally  settled  it  will  then  be  an  easy  mat- 
ter to  insert. 

Edgar  Blake:  If  you  please,  I  want  to  call  attention  to  the 
fact  that  we  have  provided  tentatively  that  there  shall  be  cer- 
tain Central  Conferences.  Turn  over  to  page  3,  the  Article  under 
the  heading  of  "Central  Conferences."  'There  shall  be  con- 
stituted the  following  Jurisdictions,  each  having  its  own  Cen- 
tral Conference,"  and  we  have  already  agreed  on  those. 
•  Bishop  Cooke:  I  didn't  want  to  have  anything  that  will  bring 
about  any  annoyance. 

Edgar  Blake:  It  comes  right  here. 

Bishop  Cooke :  That  will  come  in  when  you  fix  the  member- 
ship of  the  Judicial  Council. 

Edgar  Blake:  That  really  comes  in  in  the  preceding  para- 
graph ;  but  what  I  have  in  mind  is  that  we  ought  to  cover  this, 
that  the  Judicial  Council  shall  have  the  power  to  review,  on 
constitutional  grounds,  the  acts  of  lawmaking  bodies.  We 
have  already  agreed  tentatively  that  there  shall  be  three 
Conferences — the  General  Conferences,  the  Regional  Confer- 
ences, and  the  Central  Conferences — and  that  the  Central  Con- 
ferences ought  to  be  named  now ;  also  I  thought  it  would  be 
well  to  name  the  Jurisdictional  General  Conferences,  with  the 
understanding  that  if  we  do  not  agree  to  that  it  will  be  dropped 
out. 

Bishop  Cooke:  Suppose  after  the  words  "Regional  Confer- 
ences" we  may  insert  "the  Central  Conferences." 

Edgar  Blake:  It  would  read  as  follows:  "The  Judicial  Coun- 
cil shall  have  full  power  to  review,  upon  appeal  on  constitu- 
tional grounds,  the  acts  of  the  General  Conferences,  the  Region- 
al Conferences,  the  Central  Conferences,  and  the  Jurisdic- 
tional General  Conferences." 

Bishop  Cooke :  We  will  accept  that. 

Frank  M.  Thomas :  I  fully  agree  to  add  in  there  "the  Cen- 
tral Conferences,"  because  it  is  proper  that  they  should  have  a 
tribunal  to  which  they  can  appeal ;  but  when  you  come  to  the 
Associate  General  Conferences,  that  term  being  in  my  mind 
just  now,  you  are  going  to  make  that  amenable  to  the  judi- 
cial body  which  is  at  present  constituted  by  the  General  Con- 
ference and  which  is  in  a  sense  coordinate  to  the  General  Con- 
ference you  are  creating.  It  seems  to  me  that  if  you  do  that 
you  must  widen  your  concept  of  the  Judicial  Council.  It  strikes 
me  that  can  only  be  created  by  creating  a  Federal  Council  of 
Methodism,  or  giving  your  Judicial  Council  a*  new  setting  when 
it  passes  on  cases  coining  from  these  Associate  General  Confer- 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


149 


ences.  Do  you  see  the  point?  The  Judicial  Council  as  now 
constituted  is  constituted  by  one  General  Conference,  and  yet  it 
passes  upon  questions  coming  from  the  Associate  General  Con- 
ferences.  There  is  the  difficulty. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  see  no  difficulty  in  view  of  the  fact  that,  ac- 
cording to  the  scheme  we  have  in  mind,  we  provide  that  the  As- 
sociate General  Conference  shall  have  representation  on  the  Ju- 
dicial— or  perhaps  it  would  be  better  to  call  it  the  Constitutional 
Council,  so  that  we  have  for  the  entire  Church  only  one  ju- 
dicial body  that  passes  upon  constitutional  matters  for  the 
entire  Church,  that  reviews  the  acts  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence, the  Associate  General  Conference,  the  Regional  Confer- 
ences, and  the  Central  Conferences. 

Frank  M.  Thomas :  But  unless  you  constitute  it  when  it 
sits  as  a  final  court  over  the  Associate  Conferences — unless  you 
give  it  a  new  setting,  you  are  having  these  bodies  appeal  to  a 
Council  in  which  they  have  no  creative  power.  The  Judi- 
cial Council  as  now  constituted  is  created  by  the  General  Con- 
ference. If  you  want  to  project  that  into  the  Supreme  Federal 
Council  of  Methodism,  but  to  hold  it  as  created  by  the  matter 
of  the  General  Conference,  it  could  not  function  as  a  final  tri- 
bunal of  all  the  General  Conferences  throughout  the  world. 

Edgar  Blake:  We  have  provided  that  this  Judicial  Council 
shall  be  made  up  of  two  delegates  from  each  Regional  Confer- 
ence and  three  delegates  elected  by  the  General  Conference  and 
one  delegate  from  each  Jurisdictional  General  Conference. 

Frank  M.  Thomas:  That  was  not  determined. 

Edgar  Blake:  The  plan  contemplates  that. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  I  shall  have  to  put  a  stop 
to  this  dialogue.    It  is  out  of  order. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  desire  to  offer  as  an  amendment  to  the  first 
two  lines  of  Section  7,  Subsection  1,  the  following:  "The  Ju- 
dicial Council  shall  have  full  power  to  review,  upon  appeal  on 
constitutional  grounds,  the  acts  of  the  General  Conference,  the 
Regional  Conferences,  and  the  Central  Conferences,"  omitting 
for  the  time  being  the  Jurisdictional  Conferences. 

Bishop  Cooke :  The  committee  will  accept  that. 

Edgar  Blake :  Now,  one  or  two  other  items.  This  is  not  quite 
clear  to  me.   I  want  it  made  clear : 

The  Judicial  Council  shall  have  full  power  to  review,  upon  appeal  on 
constitutional  grounds,  the  acts  of  the  General  Conference,  the  Regional 
Conferences,  and  the  Central  Conferences,  the  records  and  documents 
transmitted  to  it  from  Judicial  Conferences,  to  hear  and  determine  ques- 
tions of  lav/  and  all  other  appeals  coming  to  it  in  course  of  lawful  pro- 
cedure from  Annual  Conferences,  from  Judicial  and  Regional  Conferences, 
and  from  the  General  Conferences ;  provided,  that  no  appeal  from  any 
Conference  shall  be  entertained  unless  the  same  has  been  taken  by  at 
least  one-fifth  of  the  Conference. 


150    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

Now,  what  I  understand  by  that — and  I  want  to  know  if  I 
get  the  mind  of  the  committee — is  that  you  are  providing  there 
for  those  cases  not  constitutional,  that  shall  come  before  the 
Judicial  Council  upon  appeal. 

Bishop  Cooke:  That  is  it,  with  reference  to  the  records  and 
documents  transmitted  to  it  from  the  Judicial  Conference. 

Edgar  Blake:  May  I  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  up  to  this 
time  we  have  no  such  thing  as  a  Judicial  Conference? 

Bishop  Cooke:  We  understand  that.  We  have  not  got  a 
good  many  other  things  that  we  are  going  to  provide  for.  This 
Committee  was  appointed  to  draw  up  a  compilation  of  the  pow- 
ers, etc.,  of  the  Judicial  Council.  We  were  not  to  build  the  en- 
tire system  from  the  bottom  up. 

Edgar  Blake:  This  would  seem  to  limit  the  appeals  that  shall 
come  before  the  bodies  to  appeals  taken  by  the  Judicial,  the 
Regional,  and  the  General  Conferences,  and  I  don't  think  we 
ought  to  limit  appeals  that  may  come  before  this  body  to  ap- 
peals from  those  bodies. 

Bishop  Cooke:  May  I  explain  that?  We  all  know  that  by 
"lawful  procedure"  is  meant  those  cases  which,  having  begun  in 
the  lower  court,  take  their  course  through  all  the  upper  courts 
until  they  reach  the  final  court.  The  final  court  is  the  Judicial 
Conference  of  the  Region,  and  from  that,  when  an  appeal  is 
taken,  it  is  taken  to  the  Supreme  Court,  the  Judicial  Council, 
as  a  final  Court  of  Appeals.  The  Judicial  Council  does  not 
hear  or  review  appeals  coming  from  lower  courts.  It  comes 
from  the  lower  courts  in  lawful  procedure  and  when  the  appeal 
is  taken  from  that  to  the  Supreme  Court.  That  is  the  reason 
we  do  not  mention  that  the  other  court,  the  Judicial  Council, 
is  the  final  court. 

Edgar  Blake:  It  seems  to  me,  from  that  language,  that  ap- 
peals are  limited  to  appeals  coming  from  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences, the  Judicial  Conferences,  and  the  Regional  Conferences. 
It  seems  to  me  somewhat  briefer  and  more  simple  language 
would  cover  it  better: 

The  Judicial  Council  shall  hear  and  determine  all  other  Judicial  Ap- 
peals that  may  properly  come  before  it,  as  hereinafter  provided. 

Now,  if  you  will  turn  to  page  10,  under  'Towers  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,"  Subsection  10,  you  will  find :  "The  General 
Conference  shall  have  power  ...  to  govern  the  judicial 
administration  of  the  Church,  except  as  herein  otherwise  pro- 
vided." 

Bishop  Cooke :  I  may  state  that  that  was  one  of  the  rea- 
sons for  proposing  these  things  as  we  have  them  here.  You 
grant  legislative  power  to  the  Regional  Conference.  But  that 
is  not  a  statutory  appeal.    One  may  object  in  the  Regional  Con- 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


I5i 


ference  to  an  enactment  by  that  Regional  Conference,  but  that 
is  not  a  statutory  appeal.  It  is  an  appeal  from  the  Regional 
Conference.  A  member  there  may  object  to  something,  just  as 
in  the  General  Conference.  A  member  in  the  General  Confer- 
ence may  appeal  to  the  Judicial  Conference,  and  we  provide 
here  that  one  may  appeal  from  the  Regional  Conference  just 
as  you  do  in  the  General  Conference  to  the  Judicial  Council. 
So  we  bring  together  the  Judicial,  the  Regional,  and  the  Gen- 
eral Conferences. 

Edgar  Blake :  The  point  I  have  in  mind  is  this :  That  you  ap- 
pear by  your  action  to  place  certain  limitations  upon  the 
appeals  that  may  come  before  this  Judicial  Council  or  you 
seek  to  determine  the  process  by  which  these  appeals  can  come, 
which  process  is  to  be  committed  to  the  powers  of  the  General 
Conference.  It  seems  to  me  it  would  be  perhaps  simpler  and 
safer,  instead  of  going  into  legislation  in  the  Constitution  to 
determine  the  process  by  which  appeals  other  than  those  that 
are  made  for  constitutional  reasons  may  come  before  the  Judi- 
cial Council — that  it  is  a  safer  thing  to  make  the  statement  that 
the  Judicial  Council  shall  also  hear  and  determine  all  other  ju- 
dicial appeals  that  may  come  before  it  as  hereinafter  provided. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Do  you  offer  that  as  an 
amendment  ? 

Edgar  Blake  :  Yes,  but  I  do  not  want  to  press  it. 
The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  I  do  not  hear  the  amend- 
ment seconded. 

It  was  seconded  by  several. 

Bishop  Cooke:  I  object  to  it  on  this  ground:  The  very  moment 
you  throw  open  that  door  you  will  have  appellants  ignoring  all 
of  the  courts  and  appealing  directly  to  the  Judicial  Council. 
If  you  want  a  method  of  procedure,  that  may  come  later  on, 
but  that  was  not  the  duty  of  this  committee.  The  method  of 
procedure  will  be  taken  into  account  by  those  who  build  the 
judicial  system  from  the  Church  court  up  through  the  various 
courts  to  the  Judicial  Council. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  beg  pardon  of  the  Commission  for  the  dense- 
ness  of  my  mind,  but  if  it  is  satisfactory  to  you  I  will  apolo- 
gize for  taking  your  time  and  withdraw  the  amendment. 

Bishop  Cranston:  It  is  very  apparent,  from  the  mental  dis- 
turbance that  has  been  evidenced  in  this  extended  discussion 
between  two  brilliant  minds,  both  learned  in  the  law,  that  there 
is  some  possibility  of  improvement  in  the  statement  of  the  pow- 
ers of  that  Judicial  Council,  and  I  am  going  to  move  that  that 
be  recommitted  to  the  committee  and  that  Dr.  Moore  and  Dr. 
Blake  be  added  to  the  committee  to  make  an  additional  report 
on  that  section. 

The  motion  was  seconded. 


152    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

John  M.  Moore:  I  favor  that  motion.  I  think  it  would  be 
possible  for  us  to  get  a  clearer  statement.  I  see  you  are  not 
pleased  with  the  statement  I  offered,  but  also  that  you  are  not 
pleased  with  the  statement  that  is  here. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  think  we  can  fix  this  right  now  with  an 
amendment. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  There  is  an  amendment  that  will  clear 
up  the  situation  and  retain  in  this  everything  that  Bishop  Cooke 
desires.  If  you  will  strike  out  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  lines  the 
words  "from  Annual  Conferences,  from  Judicial  and  Regional 
Conferences,  and  from  the  General  Conference,"  you  will  still 
have  everything  in  it  that  the  Committee  has  provided  for,  be- 
cause there  will  be  nothing  to  come  before  the  Judicial  Coun- 
cil except  that  which  comes  to  it  in  course  of  legal  procedure. 
That  is  the  limitation  which  is  desired  here,  and  the  addition  of 
these  words  that  I  have  suggested  striking  out  adds  nothing  to 
it.   Therefore  I  move  to  strike  out  the  words  I  have  mentioned. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  question  is  on  Bishop 
Cranston's  motion  to  refer  it  back  to  the  Committee  with  the 
addition  of  Dr.  Blake  and  Dr.  Moore.  That  is  the  question  that 
is  before  the  body. 

Bishop  Murrah:  I  hope  there  will  not  be  any  reference.  It 
will  come  back  in  here,  and  why  not  settle  it  now  ? 

Edgar  Blake :  I  move  to  lay  the  motion  to  refer  on  the  table. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  I  now  renew  my  motion. 

The  motion  was  not  seconded,  and,  a  vote  being  taken  on  the 
adoption  of  the  item  as  amended,  the  same  was  adopted. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  want  to  ask  for  information  from  Bishop 
Cooke,  who  is  Chairman  of  the  Committee:  Do  I  understand 
that  under  this  provision  here  in  Section  7  (1)  the  General 
Conference  would  have  the  authority  to  present  to  the  Judicial 
Council  a  proposed  action  of  the  General  Conference  for  the 
Judicial  Council  to  pass  upon  the  constitutionality  of  the  same  ? 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  In  advance,  do  you  mean  ? 

Edgar  Blake:  Yes. 

Bishop  Cooke :  I  suppose  sometime  an  inquiry  is  made,  "Would 
such  an  action  be  constitutional?"  That  is  not  a  legal  way  of 
getting  at  that.  Courts  will  never  give  a  decision  on  a  hypo- 
thetical case. 

Edgar  Blake:  But  there  are  exceptions  to  that? 

Bishop  Cooke:  The  decisions  of  the  bishops  are  not  legal 
outside  of  the  case,  and  I  suppose  the  same  rule  would  apply. 
However,  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  the  General  Conference 
from  making  inquiry  of  the  Judicial  Council;  but  to  ask  for 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


153 


the  Judicial  Council  to  make  a  decision,  that  would  be,  of  course, 
another  matter. 

Bishop  McDowell:  I  think  there  may  be  a  fair  distinction 
made  between  an  inquiry  made  from  the  General  Conference  upon 
a  piece  of  legislation  which  might  be  pending  and  a  reference  to 
the  Judicial  Council  of  a  piece  of  legislation  which  had  been 
passed.  It  would  seem  rather  an  extreme  procedure,  to  be  in- 
dulged in  only  in  extreme  cases,  to  ask  for  an  opinion  in  ad- 
vance of  the  passage  of  legislation;  but  I  should  think  it  would 
be  perfectly  clear  that  if  the  General  Conference  at  any  time 
did  wish  an  opinion  from  the  Judicial  Council  upon  a  pro- 
posed matter  that  the  General  Conference  could  ask  for  that 
opinion,  but  it  would  be  an  extreme  case. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  It  would  be  a  great  mistake  for  the  Ju- 
dicial Council  to  answer  it.  There  are  very  few  cases  in  which 
such  a  proceeding  is  countenanced  in  the  States  of  this  coun- 
try. I  think  in  Massachusetts  perhaps  the  legislature  can  ask 
the  Supreme  Court,  and  I  think  possibly  also  in  New  Hampshire ; 
but  in  many  cases  it  has  been  found  that  that  provision  has 
worked  wrong,  because  no  court  can  wisely  decide  a  question 
brought  before  it  until  it  has  heard  the  opposing  argument 
from  the  factions  against  the  proposition;  and  the  court  that 
undertakes  to  decide  a  question  in  advance  very  commonly  finds 
when  a  thing  is  properly  brought  before  it  by  the  argument  by 
parties  interested  on  one  side  or  the  other  that  it  has  to  re- 
view and  reverse  itself  and  puts  itself  in  an  unenviable  position. 

Henry  W.  Rogers:  I  don't  know  whether  the  Superior  Court 
of  Massachusetts  still  indulges  in  that  practice,  but  with  one  or 
two  exceptions  the  courts  of  every  State  in  the  Union  have 
declined  to  answer  such  questions  when  they  were  propounded 
to  them. 

Bishop  McDowell:  It  would  seem  that  if  the  General  Con- 
ference wanted  to  do  that  it  would  only  resort  to  it  in  extreme 
cases,  and  the  Judicial  Council  ought  to  decline  to  answer  as  to 
proposed  hypothetical  legislation. 

Bishop  Cranston:  I  am  going  to  expose  my  ignorance.  I 
am  puzzled  to  know  from  anything  that  I  have  heard  just  by 
what  process  a  questionable  act  of  the  General  Conference  is  to  be 
brought  before  this  tribunal.  It  may  be  there  very  plainly,  but 
I  have  not  caught  hold  of  it.  Suppose  an  act  of  the  General 
Conference  is  questioned  as  to  its  constitutionality,  then  J 
suppose  the  natural  process  would  be  that  some  member  would 
make  a  motion  that  the  legislation  be  referred  to  the  Judicial 
Council  for  a  determination  as  to  its  constitutionality;  and  sup- 
pose then  that  the  majority  of  the  General  Conference  that 
passed  the  legislation  should  vote  that  it  should  not  be  so  re- 
ferred, how  would  you  get  it  there?    That  is  one  question  that 


154    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

I  desire  to  ask;  and  the  other  is,  If  you  are  going  to  make  the 
Judicial  Council  a  Court  of  Appeals  for  determining  the  con- 
stitutionality of  acts  of  all  legislative  and  administrative  bodies, 
and  I  suppose  executive  bodies  also,  why  do  you  leave  out  the 
rulings  of  the  bishops?  Why  not  let  the  Judicial  Council  settle 
the  questions  of  constitutionality  for  the  bishops  as  well  as  for 
the  legislative  powers? 

David  G.  Downey:  An  appeal  from  the  General  Conference 
to  the  Judicial  Council  would  lie  if  one-fifth  of  that  body  de- 
manded it.  "Provided  that  no  appeal  from  any  Conference  shall 
be  entertained  unless  taken  by  one-fifth  of  the  Conference." 

Bishop  Cranston.  That  refers  to  the  General  Conference  also. 

David  G.  Downey:  Yes;  if  the  General  Conference  makes  a 
decision,  one-fifth  of  the  members  can  appeal. 

Bishop  Cranston :  So  much  of  my  ignorance  is  disposed  of. 

Henry  W.  Rogers :  In  addition  to  my  statement  I  ought  to 
state  that  at  the  present  time  in  our  Church  it  sometimes  hap- 
pens, and  has  happened  on  several  occasions  within  my  memory, 
that  the  General  Conference  has  asked  in  advance  for  an  opinion 
of  the  Committee  on  Judiciary  as  to  the  legality  of  a  certain  pro- 
posed act.  They  asked  that  question  at  the  last  meeting  of  the 
General  Conference  at  Saratoga  in  reference  to  an  action  which 
was  proposed  to  be  taken  in  reference  to  the  calling  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  to  be  subject  to  the  call  of  bishops  in  case  they 
saw  fit  to  call  us  together  to  act  upon  the  unification  of  Meth- 
odism, and  we  made  a  report  without  protest  in  which  we  said 
it  was  entirely  within  the  power  of  the  General  Conference  not 
to  adjourn  sine  die,  but  to  adjourn  subject  to  the  call  of  the 
bishops  if  it  was  found  desirable.  The  two  cases  of  asking  for 
an  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court  on  certain  proposed  legisla- 
tion is  a  little  different  from  the  General  Conference  asking  of 
the  Judiciary  Committee  for  its  advice  on  a  certain  question 
that  they  desired  to  be  informed  upon ;  and  while  I  am  on  my 
feet  may  I  ask  whether  there  has  been  a  final  vote  on  this 
article  on  all  the  subjects  embraced  in  it?  We  have  gone  through 
it  and  considered  various  items,  but  I  want  to  finally  dispose  of 
that  and  want  to  take  some  action  by  roll  call  in  reference  to 
the  final  adoption  of  it  and  I  want  to  call  for  that  roll  call. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  You  have  not  voted  on 
Subsection  2  of  Section  9. 

Edgar  Blake:  What  I  wanted  to  bring  out  was  exactly  what 
Judge  Rogers  has  called  your  attention  to — namely,  that  some- 
times there  have  arisen  cases  when  the  General  Conference 
was  not  quite  sure  whether  the  action  of  that  body  was  in  har- 
mony with  the  Constitution,  and  we  have  called  upon  our  ju- 
diciary to  give  us  a  judgment  upon  the  matter  in  hand.  That 
indeed  is  a  little  irregular  as  the  procedure  of  secular  courts  is 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


155 


concerned,  but  I  confess  to  my  mind  it  seems  to  me  to  be  a 
very  wise  and  necessary  procedure.  Any  General  Conference 
made  up  of  six  or  eight  hundred  men  brought  together  from 
the  ends  of  the  earth,  most  of  whom  know  very  little  about  the 
legal  aspect  of  some  of  these  matters  that  will  come  before 
us — certainly,  if  the  great  body  that  meets  once  every  four 
years  can  be  saved  from  enacting  legislation  that  is  unconsti- 
tutional and  can  be  led  by  a  wise  Judicial  Council  into  getting 
in  harmony  with  the  Constitution,  it  would  be  a  very  good  thing. 
I  think  an  advance  inquiry  by  a  legislative  body  of  a  Com- 
mittee on  Judiciary  is  consistent.  But  here  you  are  establishing 
a  court  of  final  resort.  You  may  say  that  you  are  virtually 
taking  out  of  the  General  Conference  a  Committee  on  Judici- 
ary and  that  you  can  make  inquiry  in  advance  as  to  whether 
a  proposed  measure  is  constitutional.  Legislative  bills  have 
often  been  referred  to  a  Committee  on  Judiciary,  but  this  seems 
to  involve  establishing  a  Supreme  Judicial  tribunal.  I  regret 
very  much  to  see  the  term  "Council,"  but  it  is  probably  too  late 
to  object  to  that  now.  I  do  not  like  that  term  introduced  in 
Methodism,  but  that  is  not  the  question  up  now ;  but  if  we  are 
going  to  make  a  Supreme  Court  in  Methodism,  make  it  a  real 
court. 

Edgar  Blake:  Where  is  the  advantage  of  having  the  Judi- 
cial Council  meet  at  the  same  time  the  General  Conference  meets? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Dr.  Blake  has  not  made  any 
motion  and  there  does  not  seem  to  be  anything  before  us. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  am  willing  to  make  the  motion. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Suppose  you  make  the 
motion  then. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr.:  Was  not  Subsection  1  adopted? 
The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Yes. 

Bishop  Cooke:  And  a  motion  was  made  to  adopt  the  second, 
and  the  vote  should  be  upon  the  adoption  of  the  second. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  One  amendment  ought  to  be  made.  I 
call  attention  to  this  fact.  You  will  notice  the  first  proviso 
reads : 

Provided  that  if  on  a  constitutional  question  there  shall  be  a  majority 
vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the  General  Conference,  disapprov- 
ing a  decision  of  the  Judicial  Council,  its  construction  of  the  question 
involved  shall  then  be  sent  to  the  Annual  Conferences  for  final  approval 
or  disapproval,  as  provided  in  Subsection  11,  Section  2,  of  Article  IX.  of 
the  Constitution. 

We  have  already  provided  for  a  quorum  in  Section  5 — "Two- 
thirds  of  the  members  elected  to  the  General  Conference  shall  be 
necessary  for  a  quorum" — and  it  seems  to  me  it  is  quite  un- 
necessary to  repeat  that  here.  I  ask  that  the  first  proviso 
should  be  made  to  read  in  this  way:  "Provided  that  on  a  con- 


I56    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


stitutional  question  there  shall  be  a  majority  of  the  General 
Conference  present  and  voting,"  etc. 

Bishop  Cooke :  That  does  not  affect  our  clause. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr.:  No,  sir;  it  just  chimes  in  with  what  you 
have. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  I  want  to  raise  a  question :  Was  it  not  the 
intention  to  require  two-thirds  of  the  General  Conference — 
not  a  majority,  but  two-thirds? 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  No,  it  was  two-thirds  of  the  members 
of  the  several  Annual  Conferences  that  you  are  thinking  about. 

Bishop  McDowell :  Dr.  Van  Cleve's  recollection  is  wrong 
at  that  point.  I  think  the  interpretation  was  that  two-thirds  of 
the  General  Conference  constituted  a  quorum,  and  two-thirds 
of  that  should  have  the  power  in  this  and  all  similar  cases. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Do  you  not  mean  a  ma- 
jority vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  General  Conference  present 
and  voting? 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  That  is  not  the  language  I  put  in.  Two- 
thirds  makes  a  quorum,  and  it  must  be  a  majority  of  those  pres- 
ent and  voting. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Does  the  Committee  accept 
that  amendment? 
Bishop  Cooke :  Yes. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  Strike  out  the  word  "two-thirds"  and 
insert  after  "Conference"  the  words  "present  and  voting,"  so 
that  it  shall  read  "a  majority  of  the  quorum  present  and  voting." 

Frank  M.  Thomas:  As  a  member  of  that  Committee,  I  am 
opposed  to  that.  I  think  in  order  for  there  to  be  a  disapproval 
of  the  decisions  of  the  Judicial  Council  they  should  be  sent 
down  to  the  Annual  Conferences,  and  it  should  be  by  at  least 
two-thirds  of  those  present  and  voting. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  We  want  a  majority  of  the  two-thirds 
required  for  a  quorum. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  The  question  arises  whether  by  two-thirds 
you  mean  two-thirds  of  those  present  and  voting  or  whether 
you  mean  a  majority  out  of  the  two-thirds.  Do  you  mean  two- 
thirds  of  the  people  present  and  voting  or  a  majority  of  those 
present  and  voting? 

Bishop  Cooke:  I  think  I  voiced  the  judgment  of  the  commit- 
tee in  saying  that  the  intention  was  a  majority  of  the  two- 
thirds  of  those  present  and  voting. 

Bishop  Cranston :  And  you  have  that  same  question  when 
you  provide  that  one-fifth  of  the  Conference  can  appeal.  Do 
you  mean  one-fifth  of  the  Conference  really  or  do  you  mean 
one-fifth  of  those  voting? 

Bishop  Cooke :  Only  those  voting,  one-fifth  of  those  present 
and  voting. 


St.  Louis  Meeting  157 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  In  order  to  make  the  matter  perfectly 
clear  I  move  to  strike  out  the  word  "majority." 
The  motion  was  seconded. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  That  would  be  two-thirds  of  the  whole 
General  Conference.  My  amendment  is  to  strike  out  the  word 
"two-thirds"  and  insert  after  the  words  "General  Conference" 
the  words  "present  and  voting."  It  would  read:  "In  all  cases 
the  decision  of  the  Judicial  Council  shall  be  final ;  provided  that 
if,  on  a  constitutional  question,  there  shall  be  a  majority  vote 
of  the  members  of  the  General  Conference  present  and  voting 
disapproving  of  a  decision  of  the  Judicial  Council,  its  con- 
struction of  the  question  shall  then  be  sent  to  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences for  final  approval  or  disapproval  as  provided  in  Sub- 
section 2,  Article  IX." 

The  motion  was  seconded. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Dr.  Van  Cleve  offers  as  a 
substitute  for  that  an  amendment  striking  out  the  words  "a 
majority." 

John  M.  Moore:  May  we  not  ask  Mr.  Simpson  to  put  in 
"present  and  voting"  independently  of  the  other?  You  have 
really  two  elements. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  I  made  it  with  both  and  the  Committee 
accepted  both.  It  is  now  in  the  form  of  the  Committee's  ac- 
ceptance with  both  of  those,  and  Dr.  Van  Cleve  is  not  in  accord 
with  the  report  of  the  Committee  in  that  sense. 

Frank  M.  Thomas:  I  make  it  a  point  of  order  that  the  Com- 
mittee did  not  accept  that. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  Here  it  is  as  the  Committee  accepted  it : 
"Provided  that  if,  on  a  constitutional  question,  there  shall  be 
a  majority  vote  of  the  members  of  the  General  Conference 
present  and  voting  disapproving  a  decision  pf  the  Judicial 
Council,  its  construction  of  the  question  involved  shall  then  be 
sent  to  the  Annual  Conferences  for  final  approval  or  disap- 
proval as  provided  in  Subsection  1 1,  Section  2,  of  Article  IX. 
of  the  Constitution." 

Frank  M.  Thomas:  The  Committee  didn't  accept  that. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  It  was  accepted. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  I  never  heard  it. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  Chair  understood 
Bishop  Cooke  to  say  that  is  not  correct.  Is  the  Chair  correct 
in  that  understanding? 

Bishop  Cooke:  I  think  it  was  accepted  with  the  word  "ma- 
jority" in  it,  but  it  was  confused  with  Dr.  Van  Cleve's  method  of 
eliminating  the  word  "majority."  I  think  you  read  "majority 
vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the  General  Conference 
present  and  voting." 


158    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


Alex.  Simpson,  Jr.:  We  seem  to  have  gotten  into  a  muddle, 
so  that  we  can't  get  at  all  that  has  been  done. 
Bishop  Cooke:  That  is  it. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr.:  To  straighten  it  out  I  move  to  insert 
after  the  words  "General  Conference"  the  words  "present  and 
voting." 

John  M.  Moore:  I  second  the  amendment. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  Is  this  section  now  open  to  amendment  ? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Certainly. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  I  move  to  strike  out  the  word  "majority," 
so  that  it  will  read  "a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the 
General  Conference  present  and  voting." 

The  motion  was  seconded. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  hope  that  will  not  carry,  for  the  simple  rea- 
son that  on  page  10  you  have  provided  that  the  General  Con- 
ference shall  have  power  "to  consider  and,  if  deemed  wise,  to 
disapprove  of  the  decisions  of  the  Judicial  Council  upon  any 
constitutional  question."  That  is  only  by  a  majority  vote  of  the 
General  Conference,  and  there  will  be  a  conflict  between  that 
section  and  this  section  here  if  the  "two-thirds"  remains  in. 

W.  N.  Ainsworth :  Dr.  Blake  is  mistaken.  We  amended  the 
paragraph  you  read  to  make  it  "two-thirds." 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  What  paragraph  are  you 
referring  to? 

Edgar  Blake :  I  am  referring  to  the  bottom  of  page  10.  We 
change  the  simple  majority  in  the  last  line  so  that  the  paragraph 
as  amended  now  reads :  "To  consider  and,  if  deemed  wise,  to 
disapprove  of  the  decisions  of  the  Judicial  Council  upon  any 
constitutional  question,  and  to  require  its  submission  to  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Annual  Conferences,  the  decision  of  two-thirds  of 
those  present  and  voting  shall  be  final  thereon."  The  section 
as  it  now  stands  requires  only  a  majority  vote  of  the  General 
Conference.  We  must  either  strike  out  the  "two-thirds"  here 
or  put  the  "two-thirds"  in  back  yonder.  You  must  do  one  or 
the  other,  because  you  have  said  it  shall  take  the  process  as  pro- 
vided in  Subsection  11  of  Section  2  of  Article  IX.  of  the  Con- 
stitution.  You  have  to  make  a  change  at  one  point  or  the  other. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Do  you  make  the  motion? 

Edgar  Blake:  I  move  as  a  substitute  for  Dr.  Van  Cleve's 
motion  to  strike  out  the  words  "there  shall  be  two-thirds,"  so 
that  it  will  read:  "Provided  that  if,  on  a  constitutional  question, 
a  majority  of  the  members  of  the  General  Conference  present 
and  voting  shall  disapprove  of  a  decision  of  the  Judicial  Coun- 
cil, its  construction,"  etc. 

David  G.  Downey:  I  hope  that  motion  will  not  prevail.  I  do 
not  think  there  is  any  contradiction,  when  they  are  properly 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


159 


understood,  between  Subsection  n  on  page  10  and  the  pro- 
viso for  a  two-thirds  majority  of  the  General  Conference.  At 
the  bottom  of  page  10,  under  "Powers  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence," it  says:  "Consider,  and  if  deemed  wise,  to  disapprove  of 
the  decisions  of  the  Judicial  Council  upon  any  constitutional 
question  and  to  require  its  submission,"  etc.  Now,  I  under- 
stand Dr.  Blake  to  argue  that  that  means  that  the  General  Con- 
ference may  disapprove  by  a  mere  majority.  I  do  not  so  un- 
derstand it.  It  simply  says  the  General  Conference  may  dis- 
approve; and  now  in  the  section  that  defines  the  Judicial  Coun- 
cil we  have  the  method,  and  the  only  method,  whereby  the  Gen- 
ference  may  disapprove,  and  the  judgment  of  the  Judicial  Coun- 
cil shall  be  final ;  provided  that  if,  on  a  constitutional  question, 
there  shall  be  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  present  and  voting,  etc.  The  "Powers  of  the 
General  Conference"  states  the  principle  that  the  General  Con- 
ference may  disapprove,  and  now  this  is  the  provision  as  to  the 
Judicial  Council,  and  gives  the  conditions  on  which  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  may  disapprove,  and  I  hope  the  two-thirds  will 
stand.  Certainly  I  don't  believe  it  should  be  less  than  a  con- 
stitutional majority. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  I  was  endeavoring  to  get  the  floor  to  call 
attention  to  the  exact  language  of  that  method  by  which  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  could  disapprove.  It  is  not  defined  in  the  one 
place,  but  it  is  defined  here,  and  being  definite  in  one  place  suffices. 
You  could  say  "as  herein  provided,"  but  that  is  not  necessary. 
The  fact  that  the  amendment  does  provide  a  two-thirds 
vote  makes  it  require  a  two-thirds  vote  to  set  aside  a  decision 
as  to  the  Constitution.  It  seems  to  me  it  would  be  a  very  un- 
reasonable thing  to  allow  a  bare  majority  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence to  hold  up  a  decision  of  what  we  have  constituted  our  last 
Court  of  Appeals,  as  a  bare  majority  of  the  same  body  that  passed 
the  legislation  can  immediately  disapprove  of  an  action  of  the 
Supreme  Court.  That  does  not  seem  to  be  a  wise  provision,  and 
I  think  we  should  insist  that  it  should  require  more  than  a 
majority  of  the  body  whose  act  is  called  in  question  to  turn  down 
the  Supreme  Court. 

Bishop  Cranston:  I  want  to  say  a  word  in  favor  of  Dr.  Van 
Cleve's  motion.  We  have  seen  again  and  again  a  General  Con- 
ference approaching  an  adjournment  when  some  important  mat- 
ter was  before  it  and  they  would  hold  together  pretty  well  until 
a  vote  was  taken  on  that  important  matter  and  then  scatter.  I 
can  conceive  a  situation  when  you  would  have  a  report  made 
with  a  very  small  representation  in  the  General  Conference, 
perhaps  not  a  quorum,  and  yet  nobody  willing  to  ask  for  a 
roll  call.  I  think  it  would  be  safer  to  require  two-thirds  of 
those  present  and  voting.    You  will  have  a  little  faction  in  the 


160    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

General  Conference  opposed  to  any  ruling  your  Judicial  Coun- 
cil would  present. 

E.  C.  Reeves:  That  matter  was  fully  considered  by  our  Com- 
mittee. I  don't  care  if  every  member  of  the  General  Con- 
ference is  present,  I  don't  think  a  bare  majority  should  overrule 
a  decision  of  the  Judicial  Council.  If  so,  you  have  not  much 
use  for  such  a  Judicial  Council. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  want  to  withdraw  my  motion. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Dr.  Van  Cleve's  motion 
is  to  amend  by  striking  out  the  word  "majority,"  so  that  it 
would  read:  "Provided  that  if,  on  a  constitutional  question,  there 
should  be  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the  Conference 
present  and  voting." 

E.  C.  Reeves:  That  leaves  the  majority  to  overrule  the  Ju- 
dicial Council. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  No,  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of 
those  present  and  voting. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  amendment  was  carried. 

Ira  E.  Robinson:  May  I  inquire  of  Bishop  Cooke  just  what 
this  subsection  means:  "In  all  cases  the  decision  of  the  Judicial 
Council  shall  be  final"?  That  seems  to  be  clear  and  conclusive. 
Then  it  goes  on:  "Provided  that  if,  on  a  constitutional  question, 
there  shall  be  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the  General 
Conference  disapproving  of  a  decision  of  the  Judicial  Council, 
its  construction  of  the  question  involved  shall  be  sent  to  the 
Annual  Conferences  for  final  approval  or  disapproval,  as  pro- 
vided in  Subsection  II,  Section  2,  Article  IX.  of  the  Constitu- 
tion." Now,  what  do  you  mean  by  that?  Do  you  mean  in  all 
cases  the  decision  of  the  Judicial  Council  shall  be  final  except 
when  the  Judicial  Council  passes  on  constitutional  questions, 
and  that  those  cases  are  appealable?  or  do  you  mean  if,  on  a 
constitutional  question  arising  in  the  General  Conference  by  the 
ordinary  procedure  of  the  General  Conference,  the  ordinary  ac- 
tion of  the  General  Conference,  there  shall  be  a  majority  vote  of 
two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the  General  Conference  in  conflict 
with  some  decision  of  the  Judicial  Council  that  relates  to  or 
affects  the  question,  then  there  shall  be  a  reference  on  that  ques- 
tion? 

David  G.  Downey :  Only  on  constitutional  questions. 

Bishop  Cooke:  That  means  that  an  appeal  is  taken  to  the 
Judicial  Council  and  the  Judicial  Council  decides  the  matter. 
If  that  decision  shall  be  disapproved  of  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence, it  shall  then  go  to  the  Annual  Conferences. 

Ira  E.  Robinson :  You  begin  by  saying  that  in  all  cases  the  de- 
cision of  the  Judicial  Council  shall  be  final. 

Bishop  Cooke:  Yes. 

Ira  E.  Robinson :  All  cases,  cases  involving  the  Constitution 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


>  161 


of  the  Church,  are  therefore  included.  You  don't  except  those. 
You  do,  however,  say,  "Provided  that  if,  on  a  constitutional 
question,"  not  necessarily  in  those  cases,  because  you  have  ex- 
cluded them.  It  may  be  a  constitutional  question  arising  in  the 
ordinary  action  of  the  General  Conference. 

Bishop  Cooke:  I  see  your  point,  and  I  will  say  that  the  op- 
posite word  to  "constitutional"  there  would  be  "statutory" ;  and 
the  meaning  would  be  that  only  on  statutory  matters  would  the 
decision  of  the  Judicial  Council  be  final. 

Ira  E.  Robinson:  This  says  that  you  may  appeal  to  the  Ju- 
dicial Council  a  case  involving  a  constitutional  question.  That 
part  is  plain,  but  again  it  might  be  considered  to  mean  this: 
that  if,  on  a  constitutional  question  arising  in  the  General  Con- 
ference, not  a  decision  of  the  Judicial  Council,  but  the  General 
Conference  in  its  ordinary  everyday  action,  there  should  be  a 
majority  vote  against  some  former  precedent  set  by  the  Judi- 
cial Council,  something  in  conflict  with  the  decision  of  the  Ju- 
dicial Council,  that  then  you  would  refer  it  to  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences. 

Bishop  Cooke:  If  the  Judicial  Council  decides  a  constitu- 
tional question  and  that  constitutional  question  is  not  appealed 
from,  that  decision  stands.  If  it  is  appealed  from,  it  takes  the 
usual  course. 

Ira  E.  Robinson:  This  language  is  indefinite.    You  make  no 
provision  for  an  appeal  on  a  constitutional  question. 
Bishop  Cooke :  You  do  in  there. 
Ira  E.  Robinson :  Only  by  implication. 
Bishop  Cooke :  I  beg  your  pardon. 
Ira  E.  Robinson:  Where  is  it? 

Bishop  Cooke:  "The  Judicial  Council  shall  have  full  power  to 
review,  upon  appeal  on  constitutional  grounds,  the  acts  of  the 
General  and  Regional  Conferences" — Section  7(1),  under  "Pow- 
ers of  the  Judicial  Council." 

Ira  E.  Robinson :  Yes,  I  see. 

A.  F.  Watkins:  As  I  understand  it,  you  object  to  the  word- 
ing, "in  all  cases  the  decision  of  the  Judicial  Council  shall  be 
final ;  provided  that  if,  on  a  constitutional  question,  there  shall 
be  a  majority  vote  of  two-thirds,"  etc.  You  say  that  would 
imply  an  exception  in  certain  cases. 

Ira  E.  Robinson :  To  make  it  consistent  with  Section  7(1). 

Bishop  Cooke:  Which  you  had  overlooked? 

A.  F.  Watkins:  "Provided,  however" — and  then  stating  the 
exceptions. 

Ira  E.  Robinson:  No,  it  is  still  susceptible  of  the  construc- 
tion I  give  that  if  a  constitutional  question — not  necessarily  on 
appeal — but  if  a  constitutional  question  arises  in  the  considera- 
tion of  some  question  in  the  General  Conference,  if  some  man 
II 


1 62    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

says  you  cannot  take  this  action  because  it  will  be  unconstitu- 
tional, someone  will  say  you  can  refer  that  matter  because 
there  is  a  precedent  against  it  in  the  decision  of  the  Judicial 
Council  down  to  the  Annual  Conferences,  according  to  Roose- 
velt. 

David  G.  Downey:  Is  it  not  clear  that  the  only  thing  con- 
templated here  is  to  provide  that,  on  constitutional  grounds, 
when  there  is  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  General  Conference  pres- 
ent and  voting  disapproving  of  the  decision  of  the  Judicial 
Council  is  only  that  kind  of  a  matter  that  is  brought  before  the 
General  Conference  ?   That  is  the  only  thing,  it  seems  to  me. 

Ira  E.  Robinson :  It  is  susceptible  to  that  construction,  but  it 
would  be  well  to  clear  this  thing  up. 

David  G.  Downey:  It  may  be  that  there  should  be  some 
change  in  this  language. 

Ira  E.  Robinson :  "Provided  that  if,  on  appeal,  a  case  in- 
volving a  constitutional  question" — 

Bishop  Cooke :  It  cannot  get  before  it  except  on  appeal. 

Ira  E.  Robinson :  Yes,  constitutional  questions  frequently 
arise  in  the  ordinary  routine  of  the  General  Conference  that 
may  be  decided  by  a  vote  of  two-thirds,  and  there  may  be  a 
disapproval  of  some  former  decision  of  the  Judicial  Council 
involved.  I  would  move  to  amend  by  having  it  read :  "Provided 
that  if,  on  an  appeal  of  a  case  involving  a  judicial  question,  there 
shall  be  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  General  Conference  disap- 
proving," etc. 

Bishop  Cooke :  I  object  to  that. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Is  that  motion  seconded? 
It  does  not  seem  to  be. 

John  M.  Moore:  We  have  spent  more  than  an  hour  trying 
to  understand  these  two  paragraphs,  and  here  is  one  of  the 
chief  lawyers  of  the  State  of  West  Virginia,  a  member  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  bringing  up  these  questions,  and  here  is  a  book 
editor  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  one  of  the  bishops 
discussing  the  interpretation  they  have.  If  men  of  this  kind 
are  not  able  to  understand  these  two  articles  clearly  and 
thoroughly — 

David  G.  Downey :  I  beg  your  pardon,  but  I  understand  them 
thoroughly. 

John  M.  Moore:  Then  if  these  other  gentlemen  are  not 
capable  of  making  the  rest  of  us  understand  them  thoroughly — 

David  G.  Downey:  I  cannot  undertake  to  do  that. 

John  M.  Moore:  It  seems  to  me  that  this  matter  should  be 
recommitted  and  put  in  the  hands  of  another  committee  for 
rewriting.  I  don't  mean  to  change  what  is  here,  but  I  think 
we  ought  to  put  this  in  the  hands  of  the  committee,  at  least  for 
editorial  revision. 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


163 


The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  There  is  an  understanding 
that  this  whole  paper  is  to  go  to  an  editorial  committee.  I  thought 
this  was  perfectly  plain  until  the  lawyers  got  hold  of  it. 

Bishop  Cooke:  I  move  the  adoption  of  the  paragraph  as 
amended,  and  I  hope  it  will  come  to  a  vote. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

Bishop  Cooke:  The  next  is  Section  9,  under  the  head  of 
"Quorum" : 

Two-thirds  of  the  Judicial  Council  shall  constitute  a  quorum.  Con- 
stitutional matters  shall  be  decided  by  a  majority  vote  of  the  entire  Judi- 
cial Council.  All  other  appeals  shall  be  decided  by  a  majority  of  those 
present  and  voting. 

I  move  that  the  section  be  adopted. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

Bishop  Cranston :  Before  we  leave  that  matter  I  want  to 
suggest  the  propriety  of  having  the  rulings  of  the  bishops 
passed  upon  by  the  Judicial  Council.  I  know  that  we  have  in 
the  past  had  a  Committee  on  Judiciary  in  our  General  Con- 
ferences, and  I  know  too  that  there  have  been  instances  where 
the  Committee  on  Judiciary  appeared  to  be  somewhat  con- 
flicting in  their  decisions,  and  it  is  almost  impossible  to  set  aside 
a  ruling  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  by  a  discussion  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference.  Sometimes  the  bishops  think  they  have  been 
dealt  with  unfairly.  I  know  of  an  instance  where  a  man  who 
deserved  as  much  of  the  Church  as  anyone  was  grievously  of- 
fended and  he  said:  "I  am  done  with  the  bishop's  business  as 
far  as  the  executive  duties  of  the  office  go.  I  make  no  decisions 
any  more."  If  I  were  a  bishop  acting  in  this  Church,  I  should 
certainly  prefer  to  have  my  rulings  passed  upon  by  the  Judicial 
Council  rather  than  by  a  Committee  on  Judiciary  as  the  Com- 
mittee on  Judiciary  is  now  chosen.  Why  all  other  bodies  should 
have  their  acts  and  rulings  and  administrations  reviewed  by  the 
Judicial  Council,  and  bishops  be  excluded  from  that  privilege 
or  that  obligation,  as  the  case  may  be,  I  cannot  see.  It  is  mak- 
ing an  exception  of  one  class  without  apparently  any  justifica- 
tion for  it.  I  think  I  will  take  the  risk  of  moving  that  this 
action  be  taken,  for  I  feel  the  responsibility  in  the  matter  as 
much  as  anybody  else  does. 

Bishop  Cooke:  It  may  not  be  necessary.  May  the  Commit- 
tee explain  before  you  make  the  motion?  The  matter  of  epis- 
copal decisions  was  not  neglected.  The  episcopal  decisions  go 
upon  record  in  the  documents  of  the  Annual  Conference.  This 
provides  for  a  review  of  all  records  and  all  documents. 

Bishop  Cranston:  Would  you  object  to  including  the  words 
"including  episcopal  decisions"? 


164    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

Bishop  McDowell :  There  is  a  difference  between  episcopal 
decisions  made  in  the  Annual  Conferences  and  rulings  made  in 
ordinary  course. 

Bishop  Cooke:  Of  course. 

Bishop  Cranston:  Is  that  inserted? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  whole  matter  has  been 
passed  on  and  only  one  of  two  courses  is  open,  either  to  move 
a  reconsideration  or  by  general  consent  being  given. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  I  want  to  raise  the  question  right  here. 
I  would  like  to  understand  if  this  means  that  every  act  of  the 
General  Conference,  whether  called  in  question  or  not,  is  to 
go  before  the  Judicial  Council. 

Bishop  Cranston :  That  doesn't  refer  to  my  matter. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Withhold  for  a  moment 
until  the  matter  that  Bishop  Cranston  brought  up  can  be  dis- 
posed of. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  I  think  it  is  vitally  related  to  that. 

Bishop  McDowell :  The  rulings  of  the  bishops  are  in  a  class 
by  themselves,  necessarily  so.  They  are  the  law  until  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  acts  upon  them  on  the  report  of  the  Committee 
on  Judiciary.  Every  ruling  which  a  bishop  makes  goes  up  to  the 
General  Conference  for  consideration  at  the  hands  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference.  Not  all  the  decisions  of  the  bishops  in  An- 
nual Conferences  are  presented  to  the  General  Conference  at  all, 
for  many  of  those  decisions  are  accepted  and  no  appeal  is  taken 
and  they  just  stand.  But  the  rulings  are  all  sent  in  for  consid- 
eration and  the  Committee  on  Judiciary  acts  on  them. 

David  G.  Downey :  Is  it  the  thought  of  Bishop  Cranston  that 
all  of  the  rulings  of  the  bishops  should  go,  whether  they  are 
challenged  or  not,  to  the  Judicial  Council,  or  is  it  only  his  thought 
that  the  rulings  of  the  bishops  should  be  presented  to  the  General 
Council  as  now;  and  if  there  be  a  Judicial  Committee  or  body 
that  in  some  other  way  passes  upon  them  in  a  satisfactory  fash- 
ion, nothing  more  is  said,  but  if  anybody  appeals  from  any 
ruling  then  it  shall  go  before  the  Judicial  Council? 

Bishop  Cranston :  In  the  absence  of  any  other  tribunal  to 
handle  such  matters  it  has  been  required  that  the  rulings  of  the 
bishops  shall  go  before  the  General  Conference.  If  a  Judi- 
cial Council  is  created,  the  Discipline  will  require  that  those  rul- 
ings shall  be  reported  to  the  Judicial  Council  for  review.  My 
thought  is  that  the  work  will  be  better  done  and  the  line  of  de- 
cisions will  be  more  uniform  and  generally  satisfactory  if  placed 
under  the  review  for  revision  by  the  same  body  to  which  all 
other  branches  of  the  Church  government  are  sent. 

David  G.  Downey:  I  do  not  see  how  it  can  come  in  here 
where  Bishop  Cranston  suggests: 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


The  Judicial  Council  shall  have  full  power  to  review,  upon  appeal  on 
constitutional  grounds,  the  acts  of  the  General  and  Regional  Conferences, 
the  records  and  documents  transmitted  to  it  from  Judicial  Conferences, 
to  hear  and  determine  questions  of  law  and  all  other  appeals  coming  to 
it  in  course  of  lawful  procedure. 

Where  can  it  come  in  there? 

Henry  W.  Rogers :  There  might  be  inserted  at  the  very  be- 
ginning of  this  section  a  separate  paragraph  which  would  make 
your  paragraph  the  second  and  change  your  second  paragraph 
to  the  third.  The  first  paragraph  might  read  like  his :  "The  Ju- 
dicial Council  shall  have  full  power  to  review  the  rulings  of 
the  bishops,  which  will  be  transmitted  or  which  are  required 
to  be  transmitted  to  it  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Board  of  Bishops." 

Bishop  Cranston:  If  general  consent  is  given  to  that,  it  will 
end  the  whole  thing. 

Bishop  Cooke:  There  is  not,  though. 

Edgar  Blake:  Is  that  just  what  we  want?  You  say  the  Ju- 
dicial Council  shall  review. 

Henry  W.  Rogers:  I  was  following  what  we  have  here.  Of 
course,  I  would  adopt  your  language. 

Bishop  Cranston:  Otherwise  the  decisions  of  the  bishops 
might  not  reach  the  Judicial  Council  at  all. 

Edgar  Blake:  That  is  not  at  all  necessary.  We  have  pro- 
vided that  the  Judicial  Council  shall  have  power  to  review  all 
matters  that  come  before  it  in  lawful  procedure.  Now,  I  as- 
sume that  in  view  of  the  fact  that  our  own  General  Conference 
— I  can  only  speak  from  that  point  of  view — requires  the  rul- 
ings of  the  bishops  to  be  submitted  to  it.  I  assume  that  here- 
after when  we  are  reorganized  the  General  Conference  in  de- 
termining the  legal  procedure  will  order  that  the  rulings  of  the 
bishops  shall  go  to  the  Judicial  Council  that  heretofore  have 
come  to  the  General  Conference. 

Henry  W.  Rogers:  It  won't  do  to  assume  too  much.  It  is 
not  always  safe  to  assume  that  what  ought  to  be  done  will  be 
done,  and  I  am  glad  that  Bishop  Cranston  has  raised  the  point, 
because  I  think  it  is  exceedingly  important  that  the  rulings  of  the 
bishops  shall  be  transmitted  to  the  Judicial  Council  to  be  passed 
upon  by  the  Judicial  Council. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  All  the  decisions  must,  or  only  those  from  which 
there  is  an  appeal? 

Henry  W.  Rogers:  All  rulings. 

Bishop  Cooke  :  The  Committee  sees  no  objection  to  it,  and  it 
is  acceptable.  Do  we  understand  that  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee now  has  this  incorporated  in  it? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  Chair  understands 
that  unanimous  consent  is  given  to  the  incorporation  of  the  item 
as  last  suggested  by  Judge  Rogers. 


166   Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 
J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  I  object. 

John  M.  Moore:  I  would  like  to  make  just  a  statement 
which  has  not  been  made.  In  our  Church  the  decisions  of 
bishops,  as  you  know,  are  passed  upon  by  the  College  of  Bish- 
ops, and  these  interpretations  and  instructions  and  decisions 
passed  upon  by  the  College  of  Bishops  are  put  into  our  Disci- 
pline as  part  of  the  law  of  our  Church.  We  have  sixty-odd 
pages  of  episcopal  decisions  in  our  Discipline  to-day.  What 
I  want  to  say  is  this,  that  that  is  a  condition  in  our  Church 
with  which  we  shall  have  to  deal.  I  think  it  is  very  necessary 
that  the  language  to  be  used  here  shall  be  of  such  kind  as  shall 
take  notice  of  the  fact  that  we  have  a  different  method  in  the 
Southern  from  the  Northern  Church,  and  in  formulating  that 
I  hope  that  matter  will  be  kept  in  mind. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  May  I  have  the  privilege  of  saying  why 
I  object  to  the  insertion  of  that  language,  or  rather  that  section? 
and  then  I  might  be  willing  to  withdraw  the  objection,  if  my 
objections  could  be  answered. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Proceed. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  It  seems  to  me  that  the  principle  upon  which 
the  courts  proceed,  that  they  will  not  render  a  decision  until  a 
case  is  presented  and  in  which  interests  are  involved  so  that 
all  features  of  the  case  will  be  thoroughly  argued  before  the 
court,  is  a  pretty  good  principle.  If  you  take  up  simply  the  rul- 
ings of  the  bishops  and  pass  upon  them,  without  this  thorough 
sifting  that  comes  in  the  case  of  an  appeal  where  there  are  two 
viewpoints,  we  are  likely  to  have  decisions  becoming  law  which 
ought  not  to  become  law.  The  brother  sitting  by  me  was  tell- 
ing me  of  a  case  that  happened  in  this  way.  Two  lawyers,  as 
I  think,  on  opposing  sides  had  not  argued  their  case,  but  laid 
certain  papers  pertaining  to  it  on  the  desk  of  the  presiding 
judge.  He  took  up  the  papers  and  read  them  over  and  entered 
his  decision  and  the  lawyers  were  amazed,  not  having  argued 
it.  They  got  the  case  reopened  and  had  an  argument,  and 
the  judge  who  had  rendered  the  decision  from  the  papers  re- 
versed the  decision  when  the  matter  was  argued.  That  in- 
dicated that  mere  ruling  should  not  be  taken  up  to  the  Supreme 
Court  and  made  the  basis  of  law.  They  ought  to  be  appealed 
from,  and  there  ought  to  be  a  thorough  threshing  out  of  the 
issue  and  a  decision  before  an  issue  is  finally  settled  by  the  Su- 
preme Court. 

Bishop  Hamilton :  I  do  not  see  any  force  in  that  argument 
that  would  not  apply  to  a  Judiciary  Committee.  We  have  never 
been  in  the  habit  of  doing  that.  The  civil  practice  is  not  always 
in  all  cases  the  ecclesiastical,  and  we  have  a  perfect  right  to  in- 
sert in  this  report  a  law  that  these  matters  shall  go  for  review 
to  the  Judicial  Council  instead  of  going  before  a  Judiciary  Com- 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


i67 


mittee.  We  have  not  provided  for  any  Judiciary  Committee. 
That  would  be  left  to  the  General  Conference,  but  it  seems 
there  is  no  objection  to  taking  it  to  an  impartial  court  where 
the  parties  interested  might  go  if  they  want  to  take  an  appeal  to 
it.  I  move  you,  if  it  is  necessary  because  of  the  objection  made, 
that  this  matter  be  inserted  which  has  been  named  by  Judge 
Rogers. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  I  beg  your  pardon,  but 
any  motion  is  now  out  of  order,  for  the  time  of  the  session  has 
expired. 

H.  H.  White:  I  rise  to  a  question  of  privilege.  We  have  had 
a  long,  hard  day  and  there  has  been  a  good  deal  of  discussion 
and  papers;  and  as  the  time  of  the  session  has  expired  I  re- 
quest that  we  close  this  evening  with  prayer  by  some  of  these 
good  gentlemen,  especially  directed  to  the  safety  and  welfare 
of  our  boys  in  France. 

The  hymn,  "We  share  our  mutual  woes,  our  mutual  burdens 
bear,"  was  sung,  after  which  Bishop  Cranston  offered  prayer. 

The  meeting  then  adjourned. 

THIRD  DAY,  FRIDAY,  APRIL  12,  1918. 

The  Joint  Commission  was  called  to  order  at  9:35  a.m.  by 
Bishop  Edwin  D.  Mouzon. 

The  hymn,  "I  love  thy  kingdom,  Lord,"  was  sung. 

Mr.  Alexander  Simpson,  Jr.,  led  in  prayer. 

The  eighty-fourth  Psalm  was  read  responsively. 

The  hymn,  "God  Bless  Our  Native  Land,"  was  sung. 

Prayer  was  offered  by  Rev.  Edgar  Blake. 

The  roll  was  called,  and  the  following  Commissioners  an- 
swered present:  Bishops  E.  E.  Hoss,  Collins  Denny,  E.  D. 
Mouzon,  W.  B.  Murrah,  from  the  M.  E.  Church,  South;  Earl 
Cranston,  J.  W.  Hamilton,  W.  F.  McDowell,  F.  D.  Leete,  R. 
J.  Cooke,  from  the  M.  E.  Church.  Ministers:  F.  M.  Thomas, 
W.  J.  Young,  J.  M.  Moore,  C.  M.  Bishop,  E.  B.  Chappell,  T. 
N.  Ivey,  A.  F.  Watkins,  H.  M.  Du  Bose,  W.  N.  Ainsworth,  A. 
J.  Lamar,  from  the  M.  E.  Church,  South;  Edgar  Blake,  D.  G. 
Downey,  J.  F.  Goucher,  R.  E.  Jones,  A.  J.  Nast,  Frank  NefT, 
E.  M.  Randall,  C.  B.  Spencer,  J.  W.  Van  Cleve,  J.  J.  Wallace, 
from  the  M.  E.  Church.  Laymen:  M.  L.  Walton,  H.  N.  Sny- 
der, P.  D.  Maddin,  R.  S.  Hyer,  J.  H.  Reynolds,  R.  E.  Black- 
well,  J.  R.  Pepper,  E.  C.  Reeves,  H.  H.  White,  E.  W.  Hines, 
from  the  M.  E.  Church,  South;  G.  W.  Brown,  A.  W.  Harris, 
C.  W.  Kinne,  I.  G.  Penn,  I.  E.  Robinson,  H.  W.  Rogers,  from 
the  M.  E.  Church.   Rev.  C.  M.  Stuart,  alternate. 

The  minutes  of  the  last  session  were  read  and  approved. 

Bishop  Earl  Cranston  assumed  the  chair  as  Chairman  of  the 
Joint  Commission. 


168    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

E.  B.  Chappell :  I  want  to  apologize  for  being  absent  without 
an  excuse  last  night.  I  went  to  dinner  with  a  friend  and  was 
not  notified  of  the  night  session. 

Frank  M.  Thomas :  A  privileged  motion.  It  strikes  me  that, 
representing,  as  we  do,  the  largest  Protestant  Church  in  Amer- 
ica, and  having  behind  us  a  constituency  the  most  potential  on 
this  continent,  a  constituency  that  is  represented  in  the  army  of 
our  nation  by  almost  twenty  per  cent  of  the  soldiers,  it  would 
not  be  an  unwise  thing  for  us  to  appoint  a  committee  this  morn- 
ing— two  bishops,  two  ministers,  and  two  laymen — to  prepare 
a  statement  to  the  Methodists  of  America  not  touching  the  ques- 
tion of  unification,  but  to  strengthen  the  minds  of  our  people  in 
this  terrible  time,  to  point  them  to  the  sources  of  our  faith  in 
the  risen  Lord,  and  striking  a  note  of  living  patriotism  that  shall 
resound  throughout  the  continent. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

Bishop  Hamilton :  I  move  a  reconsideration  of  that  paragraph 
in  the  report  for  the  purpose  of  including  Bishop  Cranston's 
amendment. 

The  motion  was  seconded. 

Bishop  Hamilton :  It  is  Section  7.  I  am  not  sure  that  Bishop 
Cranston  made  the  motion,  although  he  made  the  suggestion. 

The  motion  was  put  to  a  vote  and  carried. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  That  was  the  amendment 
of  Judge  Rogers. 

Bishop  Denny :  The  amendment  was : 

The  Judicial  Council  shall  have  full  power  to  review  the  rulings  of  the 
bishops,  which  rulings  of  the  bishops  shall  be  transmitted  to  it  by  the 
Secretary  of  the  Board  of  Bishops. 

The  Judge's  motion  was  that  that  should  be  Section  1  and  the 
other  two  sections  should  be  numbered  properly  to  conform. 

Bishop  Cranston :  It  has  been  requested  that  the  Chair  state 
the  difference  between  "rulings"  and  "decisions"  as  far  as  re- 
lates to  this  amendment.  The  "rulings"  of  bishops  are  made 
at  their  sessions  as  they  hold  them.  They  are  published  in  a 
little  handbook  which  they  carry.  The  "decisions"  at  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  would  come  before  the  Judicial  Council  on  ex- 
ception or  appeal  taken  within  the  legal  time. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  The  usage  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  is  not  identical  with  that  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  There  is  no  such  difference  between  the  decisions  and 
the  rulings  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  we 
have  no  Committee  on  Judiciary  in  our  General  Conference. 
For  information  of  the  brethren  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  who  may  happen  not  to  have  been  fully  informed  at 
this  point,  let  me  say  that  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


169 


South,  the  bishop  who  makes  a  decision  on  any  question  of  law 
which  conies  up  in  the  due  process  of  his  administration  is  re- 
quired to  prepare  a  syllabus  of  that  case  and  present  it  to  the 
College  of  Bishops  at  their  next  meeting.  If  that  decision  is 
affirmed  by  the  College  of  Bishops,  the  decision  has  the  authority 
of  law  and  becomes  the  law.  That  is  the  usage  in  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  South.  We  must  keep  both  of  these 
things  in  mind  in  order  that  we  may  act  intelligently  at  this 
point.  A  question  was  raised  last  evening,  and  I  am  glad  that 
the  question  was  raised.  Shall  all  decisions  made  by  the  bish- 
ops in  the  regular  work  of  administration,  or  rulings,  if  you 
please — shall  all  such  rulings  go  before  the  Judicial  Council  or 
shall  only  such  decisions  or  rulings  go  before  the  Judicial 
Council  as  are  carried  there  by  appeal?  It  is  my  opinion  that 
only  such  decisions  should  go  before  the  Judicial  Council 
as  are  carried  there  on  appeal.  How  may  I  understand  the 
amendment  offered  by  Judge  Rogers?  Is  it  his  purpose  that 
all  decisions  or  rulings  shall  go  before  the  Judicial  Council  or 
only  such  as  are  brought  there  on  appeal  ? 

Henry  W.  Rogers:  If  I  may  answer  the  question,  I  should 
say  the  amendment  as  I  proposed  it  would  bring  before  the  Ju- 
dicial Council  any  decision  as  contradistinguished  from  rulings, 
except  those  that  are  brought  there  on  appeal;  but  it  does  pro- 
pose to  bring  all  the  rulings  of  the  bishops  there,  whether  there 
is  an  appeal  taken  or  not.  Bear  in  mind  the  distinction  already 
stated  by  the  Bishop  in  the  Chair  as  to  what  is  meant  by  rulings 
as  distinguished  by  decisions. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  Since  we  are  now  creating  an  entirely  novel 
body,  we  ought  to  be  a  little  careful  about  the  extension  of  pow- 
ers that  we  give  to  it.  One  very  important  question  has  come  to 
my  mind  that  has  not  been  answered  by  anything  yet  said,  and 
that  is  the  occasion  that  gives  rise  to  these  rulings.  They  seem 
not  to  be  decisions,  but  rulings  of  the  Board  which  are  to  be 
transmitted  to.  the  Judicial  Council  without  any  question  con- 
cerning them.  The  first  effect  of  that  will  be  to  begin  immediate- 
ly the  creation  of  a  body  of  laws  in  a  certain  sense  separate  and 
distinct  from  the  Discipline.  You  can  call  it  interpretation  if 
you  like,  but  that  does  not  alter  the  fact.  The  prejudice  that 
arises  in  the  minds  of  the  average  man  against  courts  and  legal 
procedure  arises  from  the  immense  extent  of  court  law.  A 
man  can  get  some  idea  of  the  statutes,  but  no  ordinary  man  can 
find  his  way  through  the  wilderness  of  precedents  established  by 
judicial  decisions.  We  begin  then  immediately  to  get  a  body  of 
decisions  acquired  not  by  any  legal  process  but  simply  upon 
rulings  agreed  upon  by  the  bishops.  Then  it  is  possible  for  an 
occasion  to  arise  where  a  matter  is  prejudiced  by  a  decision  al- 
ready rendered  without  the  case  having  been  before  the  Board 


170    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

of  Bishops.  The  rulings  of  the  bishops  might  be  passed  upon 
by  the  Judicial  Council  and  become  law  with  no  question  having 
arisen.  The  question  might  afterwards  arise  involving  the  in- 
terests of  a  member  of  the  Church  and  he  would  come  with  an 
appeal  to  a  court  that  has  already  rendered  a  decision  under 
circumstances  that  have  not  brought  out  the  entire  facts  of  his 
case  exactly,  but  still  the  court  is  in  a  measure  prejudiced.  It 
will  not  reverse  itself.  But  when  a  man  comes  up  with  a  ques- 
tion involving  rights  he  ought  not  to  be  met  on  the  threshold  of 
that  court  by  a  decision  in  a  case  that  has  not  gone  to  the  bot- 
tom of  his  case.  Nothing  should  go  to  the  Judicial  Council 
except  by  regular  process  of  proceedings. 

Bishop  Cranston :  These  questions  that  come  under  the  desig- 
nation of  "rulings"  in  our  Board  are  questions  relating  to  ad- 
ministration in  all  its  phases :  Epworth  League,  Home  Mission, 
Freedmen's  Aid,  Sunday  schools,  and  many  other  points.  Wher- 
ever there  is  a  Board  concerning  which  a  question  arises  as  to 
the  interpretation  of  the  chapter  of  the  Discipline  relating  to 
the  matter,  the  ruling  usually  comes  in  the  shape  of  a  state- 
ment of  actual  conditions  or  something  that  has  already  trans- 
pired by  way  of  administration,  and  the  bishops  are  asked  to 
give  their  opinions  concerning  the  law  that  has  been  and  ought 
to  be  followed  in  the  case  proposed.  The  circumstances  are 
detailed. 

Bishop  McDowell :  It  is  never  an  abstract  case ;  it  is  always 
an  agreed  case. 

Bishop  Cranston :  Yes,  the  bishops  do  not  answer  abstract 
cases. 

Bishop  Denny :  It  may  throw  a  little  light,  I  don't  know 
whether  it  would  be  of  much  benefit,  to  make  an  explanation 
of  a  statement  made  by  Bishop  Mouzon.  In  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  only  such  a  case  can  come  before  the  Col- 
lege of  Bishops  as  arises  on  a  concrete  case  in  the  Conference 
or  an  appeal  from  a  proceeding  in  a  Conference.  We  have 
no  authority  to  pass  on  any  question  other  than  that. 
The  case  must  be  a  concrete  case,  must  arise  in  the  ordinary 
affairs  of  a  district  or  the  Annual  Conference,  if  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  latter  shall  have  decided  the  case.  It  comes  up  by 
appeal  from  the  Conference  to  the  bishops  presiding  in  the  next 
Conference.  Those  are  the  only  appeals  the  bishops  can  hear. 
In  the  Annual  Conference  the  case  has  to  be  a  concrete  case;  as, 
for  instance,  here  is  a  man  who  is  an  ordained  probationer  and 
he  asks  to  be  discontinued.  Some  one  will  raise  the  question, 
Does  that  put  him  back  in  the  ranks  of  laymen  or  does  it  leave 
him  a  local  preacher?  The  bishop  in  our  Church  would  be  under 
obligations  to  decide  that  man's  relation  to  the  Church.  He 
could  not  do  that  on  a  question  raised  except  on  a  concrete  case, 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


171 


nor  can  he  do  it  on  any  other  case  than  a  concrete  case  arising 
in  the  actual  business  of  the  Conference.  Automatically  all  de- 
cisions of  the  bishops  in  our  Church  come  before  the  College 
of  Bishops.  It  does  not  take  an  appeal.  Whatever  a  bishop  de- 
cides goes  before  the  College  of  Bishops  for  review,  and  the  de- 
cision of  the  College  of  Bishops,  whether  in  accord  with  the  de- 
cision of  the  bishops  or  not,  becomes  the  view  of  the  law  that 
the  bishops  entertain  and  it  is  published  in  our  Discipline.  We 
have  no  provision  for  any  appeal  from  any  board  of  the  Church. 
Nobody  can  review  any  of  the  decisions  of  the  Sunday  School 
Board  or  the  Board  of  Church  Extension  in  our  Church 
during  the  quadrennium.  Whatever  they  do  stands  until 
the  next  General  Conference  takes  up  the  matter.  So  it 
is  evident  that  the  functions  of  deciding  the  law  in  our 
Church  are  much  narrower  than  those  of  which  you  have 
spoken.  I  think  you  should  know  the  practice  among  us  be- 
fore you  pass  this  measure  here. 

H.  M.  Du  Bose:  I  would  ask  the  Chair  if  a  "decision"  is 
distinguished  from  a  "rule"  in  your  Church?  If  we  pass  this, 
which  will  be  a  precedent  in  the  reorganized  Church,  is  a  de- 
cision to  be  distinguished  from  a  rule  in  this  particular?  A  de- 
cision is  upon  the  merits  of  a  statutory  or  constitutional  pro- 
vision and  a  ruling  is  on  an  administrative  chapter  of  the  Disci- 
pline. Could  there  come  up  before  the  bishops  for  their  decision 
a  concrete  case  that  would  require  a  decision  on  a  question  of 
law  that  would  become  a  decision  as  distinguished  from  a  ruling? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  What  we  call  "decisions" 
are  usually  on  questions  of  law  arising  in  the  administration  of 
law  by  the  Annual  Conferences.  A  "ruling"  is  some  business 
that  comes  up  at  the  session  of  the  bishops. 

H.  M.  Du  Bose:  Suppose  a  case  involving  a  question  of  law 
should  come  before  the  bishops,  you  would  call  that  a  ruling  even 
if  you  passed  on  a  constitutional  point? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  bishops  will  not,  I 
think,  take  up  a  question  of  that  kind.  The  bishops  will  not 
give  an  opinion  that  might  embarrass  the  progress  of  the  case 
where  an  appeal  is  taken  from  an  individual  bishop. 

H.  M.  Du  Bose :  The  point  I  am  trying  to  get  in  my  mind, 
and  I  think  it  would  be  valuable  to  all,  is  as  to  whether  a  rule 
is  distinguished  from  a  decision  in  that  the  rule  applies  merely 
to  an  administrative  chapter  of  the  Discipline  and  a  decision  is 
an  application  of  law. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  A  decision  is  as  to  law 
by  the  Annual  Conference. 

H.  M.  Du  Bose :  We  have  only  rulings  in  our  Church.  They 
are  on  concrete  cases  and  they  don't  become  part  of  the  law, 
but  part  of  the  interpretation  of  the  law.    I  can  see  that  in  the 


172    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

unified  Church  we  will  need  some  review  of  such  things.  In 
so  complex  a  document  as  our  Discipline  there  will  be  a  good 
many  such  points. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon):  It  is  evident  that,  if  we 
can  get  on  by  the  use  of  the  word  "ruling"  or  "decision,"  in 
the  sense  in  which  these  words  have  been  used  in  this  section 
relating  to  the  powers  of  the  Judicial  Council,  it  will  be  neces- 
sary to  be  a  little  more  careful  in  the  use  of  language  to  determine 
in  just  what  cases  it  has  been  enumerated  and  by  what  process 
they  may  go  before  the  Judicial  Council. 

Edgar  Blake:  In  view  of  the  fact  that  we  have  used  up  fif- 
teen minutes  of  our  time,  I  move  the  previous  question. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  We  are  not  ready  to  vote 
until  we  know  what  we  are  voting  on,  and  your  motion  was 
not  seconded. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  think  our  minds  are  sufficiently  made  up  and 
we  are  wasting  time. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  I  don't  think  we  are  wast- 
ing time. 

Bishop  Cooke :  I  don't  think  there  is  any  need  for  confusion 
or  any  lack  of  understanding  of  the  rules  if  you  will  keep  in 
mind  the  statement  made  by  the  Chair.  I  myself,  speaking  now 
not  for  the  Committee,  do  not  see  any  need  whatever  for  sub- 
mitting rulings  to  the  Judicial  Council.  Why?  First,  a  rul- 
ing is  an  interpretation  of  a  law  already  enacted.  That  is  just 
what  it  is  in  a  given  case.  If  that  is  not  satisfactory,  then  the 
process  is  to  appeal  from  that  ruling,  and  so  the  appeal  would 
go  out,  and  it  simplifies  our  whole  procedure,  simplifies  our 
polity,  by  simply  requiring  that  the  decisions  shall  go  out.  Con- 
cerning every  ruling  which  is  accepted,  and  from  which  there 
is  no  appeal,  the  meaning  of  the  Church,  through  its  representa- 
tive body  of  the  law,  was  that  there  is  no  need  for  a  ruling  to 
go  up  to  find  out  whether  the  rule  is  right  or  not.  The  way  to 
ascertain  that  is  to  appeal  from  it,  and  then  the  Churches  will 
determine  whether  that  interpretation  is  in  harmony  or  not. 

Bishop  Cranston :  If  the  Commission  will  permit  and  Bishop 
Cooke  will  reply,  how  would  you  go  about  the  matter  of  secur- 
ing information  so  often  desired  by  an  administrative  board? 
There  is  nothing  in  this  Section  1  that  I  see  that  settles  the  pow- 
ers of  the  board  or  the  interpretation  of  the  law  governing 
administrative  boards. 

Bishop  Cooke:  Section  7  does  that.  That  will  be  taken  care 
of  in  the  courts  themselves.  If  there  is  any  ruling  made  in  the 
board  which  in  the  judgment  of  a  sufficient  number  of  the 
board  is  contrary  to  the  law,  an  appeal  will  be  taken. 

David  G.  Downey :  Where  does  that  come  in : 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


173 


The  Judicial  Council  shall  also  have  power  to  arrest  any  action  of  a 
connectional  board  or  other  connectional  'body,  when  such  action  is 
brought  before  it  by  appeal  by  one-fifth  of  the  members  of  said  body  or 
by  the  general  superintendents. 

It  seems  to  me  we  can  simplify  this  matter.  There  are  a  good 
many  who  feel  that  the  rulings  or  the  decisions  of  the  bishops 
as  indicated  by  Bishop  Mouzon  in  his  Church  shall  not  come 
before  the  Judicial  Council  for  review  except  on  appeal  where 
the  whole  case  can  be  gone  into  and  the  merits  of  the  case  can 
be  considered.  Therefore,  I  move  to  amend  by  inserting  the 
words  "on  appeal,"  so  that  it  shall  read,  "The  Judicial  Council 
shall  review,  on  appeal,  the  rulings  of  the  bishops" — and  the 
rest  is  stricken  out,  and  if  later  on  we  find  that  is  not  necessary 
we  can  shape  it  up  again. 

Bishop  Cranston :  Would  it  not  be  better  to  say  "decisions  on 
questions  of  law"  or  would  you  say  "rulings  and  decisions"? 

E.  B.  Chappell:  Why  do  the  bishops  as  a  body,  under  the 
Constitution  we  are  adopting  here,  make  any  rulings?  No 
questions  of  law  go  up  to  the  bishops  as  a  body.  The  bishops 
as  individuals  make  decisions  before  the  Annual  Conferences, 
and  their  decisions  can  be  taken  up  to  the  Judicial  Council  on 
appeal,  but  the  bishops  as  a  body  do  not  constitute  a  judicial 
body. 

Bishop  Cranston :  That  is  a  matter  of  practice. 

E.  B.  Chappell :  It  will  not  be  in  the  new  Constitution.  There 
is  no  provision  in  this  Constitution. 

Bishop  Cranston:  That  is  what  we  are  trying  to  settle.  Dr. 
Downey  has  attempted  in  his  motion  to  define  specifically. 

E.  B.  Chappell:  I  do  not  see  why  we  should  say  anything 
about  the  rulings  of  the  bishops.  Why  should  the  bishops  un- 
der this  Constitution  make  any  rulings?  We  have  a  Judicial 
Council  to  which  all  things  go  on  appeal,  and  the  bishops  are 
not  called  upon  to  make  any  decisions  on  appeal.  They  only 
make  decisions  individually. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Will  Dr.  Downey  give  us 
exactly  what  his  motion  is? 

David  G.  Downey:  My  motion  is  that  the  Judicial  Council 
shall  review  on  appeal  the  rulings  and  the  judicial  decisions  of 
the  bishops. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  I  would  like  to  call  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  review  of  decisions  on  appeal  is  provided  for  in  what 
we  have  already  done. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Not  as  to  the  bishops. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  "Any  case  under  judicial  procedure." 
"Any  case"  is  comprehensive  in  that  regard. 

E.  B.  Chappell :  I  want  some  one  to  answer,  Why  should  the 
bishops  as  a  body  make  any  rulings? 


174    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  You  have  not  the  floor 
now.    Dr.  Van  Cleve  has  the  floor. 

E.  B.  Chappell:  I  just  wanted  to  get  an  answer  to  that  in- 
quiry. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  "To  hear  and  determine  questions  of  law 
and  all  other  appeals  coming  before  it  in  lawful  procedure." 
All  of  those  things  naturally  go  to  the  Judicial  Council.  If 
any  ruling  or  decision  of  the  bishops  gets  into  the  course  of 
lawful  procedure,  it  goes  there  automatically  and  without  fur- 
ther action.  A  provision  for  a  ruling  by  the  Board  of  Bishops, 
as  Dr.  Chappell  says — there  is  no  right  here  for  the  Board  of 
Bishops  to  make  a  ruling,  and  we  have  no  right  to  assume 
that  they  will  make  any  such  rulings.  I  think,  inasmuch  as 
there  is  so  much  indeterminism  in  this  thing,  that  we  can  well  let 
this  matter  rest  until  we  are  unified.  I  move  to  indefinitely 
postpone. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  I  don't  think  the  motion 
to  postpone  indefinitely  is  in  order. 
J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  I  think  it  is  in  order. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  As  a  matter  of  strict  order, 
I  suppose  it  could  be  entertained;  but  there  are  brethren  here 
who  wish  to  speak,  and  I  don't  think  you  should  cut  them  off. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  I  call  for  a  vote  on  my  motion  to  indefinite- 
ly postpone. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  result  was  18  for  and  12  against.  So 
the  matter  was  postponed. 

Edwin  M.  Randall :  I  think  there  is  a  change  that  could  be 
made  in  Subsection  2  which  is  so  obvious  that  it  will  be  done 
by  general  consent.    It  reads : 

The  Judicial  Council  shall  also  have  power  to  arrest  any  action  of  a 
connectional  board  or  other  connectional  body,  when  such  action  is 
brought  before  it  by  appeal  by  one-fifth  of  the  members  of  said  body  or 
by  the  general  superintendents. 

This  means  that  if  any  connectional  body  of  the  Church  pro- 
poses an  action  that  is  unjust  or  unlawful  in  the  judgment  of 
another  connectional  body  there  can  be  no  relief  unless  one- 
fifth  of  the  connectional  body  which  is  doing  the  unjustifiable 
action  shall  take  an  appeal  against  the  rest  of  the  body.  That 
is,  an  Annual  Conference  could  not  bring  an  action  against 
the  Board.    I  believe  if  you  will  insert  after  the  word — 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  Chair  understands  that 
the  matter  was  reconsidered  for  the  presentation  of  the  ques- 
tion of  reference  of  episcopal  decisions  to  the  Judicial  Council. 
Without  general  consent  it  might  not  be  in  order  to  bring  this 
matter  up  now.    Is  general  consent  given? 

The  consent  was  given. 

Edwin  M.  Randall:  Note,  under  the  first  sentence  of  Sub- 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


175 


section  2,  that  there  is  no  means  of  arresting  the  action  of  any 
connectional  body  unless  one-fifth  of  the  membership  of  the 
body,  the  action  of  which  is  to  be  arrested,  shall  make  an  ap- 
peal to  the  Judicial  Council  against  the  action  of  their  own 
body,  or  unless  the  Board  of  Bishops  shall  ask  for  an  arrest  of 
the  action.  The  Board  of  Bishops  only  meet  once  in  six  months, 
and  there  might  be  a  delay  fatal  in  the  given  case.  In  my  judg- 
ment, clearly,  if  a  connectional  body  undertakes  to  do  a  thing  that 
is  unfair  and  that  trespasses  upon  any  other  connectional  board, 
that  other  connectional  board  ought  to  be  able  to  appeal  to 
the  Judicial  Council  to  arrest  this  action,  whether  it  is  any  other 
connectional  board  or  the  Annual  Conference,  and  I  propose  to 
remedy  that  by  inserting  after  the  words  "said  body,"  in  the 
third  line,  the  words,  "by  any  other  connectional  body,"  so  that 
it  would  read :  "The  Judicial  Council  shall  also  have  power  to  ar- 
rest any  action  of  a  connectional  board  or  other  connectional 
body  when  such  action  is  brought  before  it  by  appeal  by  one- 
fifth  of  the  members  of  said  body,  or  by  any  other  connectional 
body  or  by  the  general  superintendents."  That  would  give  the 
Annual  Conference  or  any  other  connectional  board  an  oppor- 
tunity to  appeal  to  the  Judicial  Council  against  unwarranted 
action.  There  have  been  cases  where  other  connectional  boards 
would  certainly  have  availed  themselves  of  an  opportunity  like 
this. 

John  F.  Goucher:  This  is  a  detail  that  requires  considerable 
consideration,  and  I  do  not  think  we  can  spare  the  time  for  that 
consideration  right  now. 

David  G.  Downey:  We  reconsidered  "Powers"  to  do  some- 
thing, and  now  is  it  necessary  to  re-pass  Section  7? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  I  think  we  had  better  ap- 
prove the  section. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  section  was  approved. 

Ira  E.  Robinson :  I  would  like  to  make  an  inquiry  as  to  the 
meaning  of  a  word  in  that  section.  Just  exactly  in  what  shape 
is  that  section  now? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  It  was  passed  last  evening 
and  re-opened  and  now  is  again  approved. 

Ira  E.  Robinson:  I  want  to  make  an  inquiry:  What  does  this 
word  "arrest"  mean?  Is  it  an  injunctive  process  or  what  kind 
of  a  process?  You  will  have  that  inquiry  later  on  if  it  is 
adopted. 

Bishop  Cooke :  Are  you  asking  a  question,  Judge  ? 

Ira  E.  Robinson:  Yes,  sir.  The  whole  draft  of  Subsections 
1  and  2  is  unfortunate  and  ought  to  be  cleared  up.  They  should 
be  drafted  to  express  what  is  intended. 

John  M.  Moore:  I  move  that  Section  7,  under  "Powers,"  be 
recommitted  for  redraft. 


176    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Why  not  both  sections? 
John  M.  Moore:  The  two  sections  under  "Powers." 
David  G.  Downey:  A  point  of  order.    No.  7  has  been  adopt- 
ed twice.    It  cannot  be  recommitted  after  being  adopted. 
The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  That  is  true. 
Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  That  will  come  out  in  the  editing. 
Bishop  Denny  here  took  the  chair. 

John  M.  Moore:  You  have  left  it  in  the  power  of  a  small 
fraction  disposed  to  be  fractious  to  arrest  any  action  of  the  ma- 
jority until  the  Judicial  Council  can  be  heard. 

Bishop  Mouzon:  I  move  that  Article  X.  be  approved  as  a 
whole. 

Henry  W.  Rogers:  I  am  wondering  if  we  understand  each 
other.  I  think  there  is  a  very  serious  proposition  involved  here, 
and  I  doubt  whether  we  do  understand  each  other.  If  you  will 
allow  me,  I  want  to  explain  what  I  mean.  Under  the  system 
in  our  Church  we  have  a  Committee  on  Decisions.  It  makes 
its  report  to  the  General  Conference.  The  General  Conference 
may  approve  or  may  disapprove.  That  is  perfectly  legitimate, 
because  we  are  a  committee  of  the  body,  and  we  report  back  to 
that  body  our  conclusions  and  findings.  Now  we  are  proposing 
another  thing.  We  are  proposing  to  create  a  court,  and  we 
have  taken  the  utmost  care  as  to  the  constitution  of  that  court 
to  shield  it  from  any  bias  or  possible  prejudice,  and  we  have 
established  such  qualifications  for  the  men  who  are  to  sit  in  it 
that  shall  bring  to  the  decisions  of  questions  that  shall  come 
there  the  highest  skill  that  our  Church  can  command.  What 
do  we  propose  to  do  after  having  created  with  such  care  a  court 
to  decide  these  questions?  We  propose  that  the  question  as  to 
whether  their  decisions  are  right  or  wrong  shall  be  submitted 
to  a  mob.  I  use  that  term  respectfully,  but  it  is  a  mob;  not 
whether  the  Constitution  shall  stand  or  be  changed,  but  whether 
the  decision  is  right  or  whether  the  decision  is  wrong.  If  the 
Church  is  competent  to  decide  that  question,  there  is  no  neces- 
sity for  creating  a  Supreme  Court  and  hedging  it  about  with  all 
the  careful  restrictions  and  prohibitions  which  we  have  put  into 
the  Constitution.  I  say  you  want  to  accomplish  the  same  re- 
sults, you  and  I,  but  we  differ  as  to  the  present  form  in  which 
the  Judicial  Council  is  created.  If  I  understand  what  your  mo- 
tive is,  we  mean  the  same  thing;  but  I  think  we  have  gone  at  it 
in  a  wrong  way.  Instead  of  submitting  to  a  mob  the  question 
of  whether  a  decision  is  right  or  wrong,  we  should  submit  to  the 
Annual  Conferences  the  question  of  whether  the  Constitution 
shall  be  amended ;  not  whether  the  decision  is  right  or  wrong, 
but  whether  we  shall  amend  the  Constitution  so  as  to  make  it 
conform  to  what  the  court  has  said  is  not  in  accordance  with  the 
Constitution  at  the  time  the  decision  is  rendered.    That  is  what 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


177 


you  want  and  I  want,  but  we  want  to  get  at  it  in  different  ways. 
They  have  a  Court  of  Errors  and  Appeals  in  the  State  of  New 
Jersey,  and  there  sit  in  that  court  lay  judges,  a  few  of  whom 
are  put  there  to  advise  and  counsel  with  technical  lawyers  who 
constitute  the  court;  and  I  presume  to  say  that  if  you  were  to 
propose  in  New  Jersey  to  send  down  a  decision  of  that  Court 
of  Errors  and  Appeals  to  the  people  to  determine  whether  its 
decisions  are  right  or  wrong  upon  the  law,  it  would  be  over- 
whelmingly defeated.  Not  only  is  it  the  judgment  of  courts 
and  of  the  lawyers,  but  it  is  the  judgment  of  the  American  peo- 
ple that  the  question  of  whether  a  decision  is  right  or  wrong 
should  be  decided  by  a  court,  and  not  by  the  people ;  and  I  say 
further  that  if  in  any  State  its  Constitution  should  be  amended — 
I  speak  of  the  East  more  particularly,  because  I  know  the  feel- 
ings there — if  a  Constitution  should  be  so  amended  as  to  send  to 
the  people  decisions  of  whether  an  opinion  rendered  by  a  Su- 
preme Court  was  right  or  wrong,  you  would  find  that  many  judges 
would  resign  their  positions.  I  say  there  are  judges  who  would 
not  sit  in  a  civil  court  under  such  conditions,  and  I  say  the  same 
thing  in  reference  to  ecclesiastical  courts — they  would  not  be 
members  of  a  court  where  the  Constitution  provided  that  the 
question  of  the  rightfulness  or  wrongfulness  of  a  decision  could 
be  sent  down  to  be  decided  by  popular  vote.  If  we  mean  the 
same  thing — and  I  think  we  do — we  should  change  the  word- 
ing of  the  Constitution  so  as  to  provide  that,  in  cases  where  a 
constitutional  question  is  involved  and  the  decision  of  the  court 
is  adverse  to  the  constitutionality  of  the  legislation  involved, 
then  the  General  Conference  may  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  those 
present  and  voting  send  down,  not  the  question  of  whether  the 
decision  is  right  or  wrong — that  is,  the  law  question — but  send 
down  the  question  of  whether  or  not  the  Constitution  shall  be 
amended  in  the  particulars  involved,  and  if  this  matter  just  re- 
ferred to  is  to  be  sent  back  for  revision,  I  want  to  call  attention 
to  the  fact  that  we  are  adopting  as  a  Church  and  putting  into 
our  ecclesiastical  court  a  principle  which  is  abhorrent  to  judges 
and  lawyers  and  to  a  great  majority  of  the  American  people. 
M.  L.  Walton :  What  is  before  us  ? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  There  is  no  motion  before  us. 
Bishop  Mouzon:  I  moved  that  Article  X.  as  amended  and 
perfected  be  adopted,  and  that  is  before  the  house. 
The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Was  that  seconded? 
The  Secretary:  Yes. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  I  should  dislike  very  much  for  the  vote  to 
be  taken  immediately  following  Judge  Rogers's  speech.  I  do 
not  count  myself  altogether  competent  to  reply  to  Judge  Rog- 
ers's speech,  for  I  am  not  a  trained  lawyer  and  I  have  often  had 
occasion  to  be  thankful  that  I  am  not.  I  have  observed  that  the 
12 


178    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

ecclesiastical  statesman,  who  is  not  hampered  by  previous  legal 
training,  is  much  more  likely  to  come  to  wise  conclusions  and  do 
the  thing  that  ought  to  be  done  for  the  Church  than  the  man 
who  is  too  much  hampered  by  previous  training  in  the  law 
courts  of  the  land.  We  all  have  the  highest  respect  for  the 
legal  ability  and  distinguished  services  that  have  been  rendered 
by  Judge  Rogers,  but  the  analogies  that  he  draws  between  the 
courts  of  the  land,  between  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  and  this  Judicial  Council,  which  is  not  a  Supreme  Court, 
is  a  faulty  analogy  and  a  very  dangerous  analogy.  It  was  pointed 
out  on  yesterday  that  the  analogy  breaks  down  just  at  this  point. 
Your  Supreme  Court  is  made  up  of  specially  trained  men,  tech- 
nically trained  men,  men  who  give  all  of  their  time  to  questions 
of  law,  men  who  are  in  every  particular  competent  to  pass  on 
questions  of  law.  But  our  Judicial  Council  is  not  made  up  of 
men  of  that  sort,  and  cannot  be  made  up  of  men  of  that  sort. 
It  will  be  made  up  of  men  busy  in  other  activities  of  the  Church. 
What  is  here  proposed  has  been  the  custom  in  Methodism 
from  the  beginning,  and  if  you  follow  the  suggestions  made 
by  Judge  Rogers  you  reverse  the  practice  of  Methodism  from 
the  days  of  William  McKendree  down  to  the  present  time.  Fur- 
thermore, there  are  some  of  us  who  will  never  consent  to 
have  the  Supreme  Court  pass  upon  all  of  these  questions  with- 
out the  possibility  of  the  Annual  Conferences  voting  on  them. 
We  had  as  well  understand  that  we  will  never  agree  that  the 
Judicial  Council  shall  have  the  final  decision  in  these  matters. 
What  we  desire  is  that  the  Judicial  Council  shall  have  oppor- 
tunity to  arrest  unconstitutional  legislation,  and  do  no  more 
than  that;  and  then,  when  it  has  arrested  unconstitutional  legis- 
lation, let  the  Annual  Conferences  pass  on  the  questions  in  dis- 
pute. That  alone  will  satisfy  us.  Why,  if  my  brethren  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  are  ready  to  go  as  far  as  Judge 
Rogers,  they  not  only  have  gone  farther  than  they  have  ever 
gone  before,  but  farther  than  any  of  us  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  ever  dreamed  of.  The  College  of  Bish- 
ops has  no  veto  power.  It  only  has  the  power  to  arrest  un- 
constitutional legislation ;  and  all  that  is  suggested  from  the  be- 
ginning in  this  Judicial  Council  has  been  the  creation  of  a  body 
which  will  have  the  power  to  arrest  unconstitutional  legislation, 
and  it  is  exceedingly  unfortunate  that  a  question  very  much  de- 
bated among  distinguished  lawyers  should  be  brought  into  the 
discussion  this  morning.  I  am  not  trying  to  fashion  a  Supreme 
Court  after  the  courts  of  the  land,  but  trying  to  safeguard  the 
customs  of  the  Church  and  the  Constitution  of  the  Church,  and 
what  is  here  proposed  is  in  line  with  the  practice  of  Methodism 
from  the  beginning  until  this  time. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  I  would  like  to  have  the  opinion  of  another 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


179 


eminent  jurist  on  this  question,  because  I  am  influenced  by  the 
opinions  of  such  gentlemen  very  largely,  and  I  would  like  to 
hear  what  Judge  Simpson  thinks  about  it. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr.:  Mr.  Watt  does  me  too  much  honor.  I 
am  not  a  judge,  and  never  expect  to  be.  I  am  quite  content  to 
be  an  everyday  lawyer.  I  am  in  entire  discord  with  what  Judge 
Rogers  has  said.  I  think  Bishop  Denny  put  the  matter  yesterday 
so  as  to  leave  very  little  doubt  on  the  question.  We  are  not 
dealing  with  this  matter  from  the  standpoint  of  an  ordinary 
civil  tribunal.  That  is  not  what  we  are.  This  is  a  voluntary 
organization.  If  I  want  to  live  in  America,  I  am  bound  to  sub- 
mit myself  to  the  Constitution  and  the  laws  of  America;  and  if 
I  do  not  want  to  submit  to  those  laws  and  that  Constitution, 
I  can  get  out.  I  am  in  the  Methodist  Church,  and  if  I  am  not 
pleased  with  the  Methodist  Church  I  can  join  the  Presbyterian 
or  the  Methodist  Protestant,  and  the  whole  analogy  falls  by  the 
wayside.  There  is  no  analogy.  The  position  Judge  Rogers 
takes  means  this:  We  are  not  creating  an  actual  court  tribunal 
which  stands  away  up  above  the  whole  of  us.  We  are  creating 
a  temporary  tribunal,  which  is  changed  from  time  to  time  and 
which,  unless  it  keeps  in  touch  with  the  General  Conference 
and  the  members  of  the  Church,  is  going  to  create  a.  discord 
and  is  going  to  result  at  some  time  in  the  not  distant  future 
in  the  whole  or  a  large  part  of  the  members  of  that  Judicial 
Council  being  turned  out  and  others  put  in  who  will  carry  in  effect 
the  wishes  of  the  General  Conference  and  the  membership  of 
the  Church,  and  we  do  not  want  that  to  happen.  That  is  con- 
fusion worse  confounded  from  anything  that  Judge  Rogers  has 
said  on  this  subject.  Go  into  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  for  illustration,  and  the  judges  are  put  on  there  for  life, 
affected  by  nothing.  They  cannot  be  turned  out  unless  they 
violate  the  laws  and  subject  themselves  to  impeachment.  They 
stay  there  as  long  as  they  live.  This  tribunal  is  not  such  as  that. 
Do  you  want  a  Judicial  Council  put  in  the  position  that  it  will 
antagonize  the  General  Conference  and  the  Church  at  large  on 
some  technical  matter,  so  that  when  the  next  General  Confer- 
ence meets  they  will  turn  all  of  those  men  out?  We  do  not 
want  that,  and  yet  that  is  just  what  may  happen. 

Ira  E.  Robinson :  Because  that  is  the  power  between  quad- 
renniums. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr.:  No,  sir;  I  would  be  sorry  if  this  should 
be  called  the  old  Judiciary  Committee,  and  I  don't  care  to  have 
it  put  in  that  position.  Judge  Rogers  and  I  were  both  members 
of  that  Committee.  Judge  Rogers  was  Chairman  and  I  was 
Vice  Chairman,  and  things  happened  that  I  would  rather  not 
have  happened ;  but  it  doesn't  help  things  to  bring  that  for- 
ward.   Our  Constitution  is  what  is  here  provided,  and  is  that 


180    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

the  General  Conference,  as  a  representative  of  the  whole  Church, 
and  the  whole  Church  itself  shall  stay  in  precisely  the  same  form 
as  if  this  were  a  constitutional  amendment,  as  Judge  Rogers 
said,  because  it  comes  down  to  the  question  of  freedom  and  ab- 
solutely nothing  else.  What  is  here  provided  is  that  the  General 
Conference  and  the  Church  at  large  shall  say  whether  there  has 
been  by  the  Judicial  Council  a  proper  interpretation  of  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Constitution  which  the  Church  adopts  for  its  gov- 
ernment. You  get  precisely  the  same  thing;  and  if  you  are 
going  to  go  in  the  form  or  way  that  Judge  Rogers  desires,  you 
are  going  to  be  put  in  the  position  that  you  will  antagonize  the 
Judicial  Council  and  General  Conference  and  the  Church  at  large 
and  have  the  difficulty  that  you  want  to  avoid. 

David  G.  Downey:  I  desire  not  to  argue,  but  to  call  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  while  we  have  placed  the  Central  Con- 
ference under  the  power  of  the  Judicial  Council  we  have  not 
given  the  Central  Conferences  any  representation  on  the  Coun- 
cil.  I  desire  that  that  matter  shall  be  very  clearly  understood. 

Bishop  Cooke:  That  is  a  matter  of  record. 

David  G.  Downey:  But  we  are  now  adopting  the  entire  sec- 
tion, and  we  wish  it  distinctly  understood  that  up  to  the  present 
time  we  have  no  provision  for  representation  of  the  Central 
Conferences  in  the  Judicial  Council.  Now  the  Central  Confer- 
ences embrace  all  our  missionary  work,  and  I  simply  suggest 
that  one  of  the  grave  objections  to  our  proposed  unification  by 
reorganization  will  come  from  our  Mission  Conferences.  I  am 
not  familiar  with  the  strength  of  the  Mission  Conferences  in 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  I  am  somewhat  fa- 
miliar with  their  strength  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
and  when  men  like  Bishop  Bashford  and  Bishop  Walden  come  out 
plainly  and  strongly  against  this  proposed  form  of  unification 
because  of  the  way  we  are  handling  our  missionary  work,  we 
confront  not  a  theory  but  a  situation  with  which  we  shall  have 
to  reckon.  I  am  not  opposing  the  adoption  of  this  now.  The  only 
way  in  which  the  Central  Conferences  seem  ever  to  be  able  to 
get  into  the  Judicial  Council  is  by  a  provision  under  the  so- 
called  Jurisdictional  General  Conference  or  perhaps  the  Juris- 
dictional Central  Conference — I  don't  know  which  it  is. 

Edgar  Blake:  Jurisdictional  General  Conference. 

David  G.  Downey:  The  Jurisdictional  General  Conference 
is  allowed  one  representative  upon  the  Constitutional  Council, 
but  I  don't  know  what  that  is.  It  may  be  the  Judicial  Council. 
I  don't  know  but  that  that  seems  to  be  the  only  way  in  which 
the  Central  Conferences  at  all  get  in  touch  with  the  Judicial 
Council,  and  their  acts  are  under  the  supervision  and  control 
of  the  Judicial  Council. 

Edwin  M.  Randall:  Is  this  final  or  tentative  adoption? 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


181 


The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny):  Tentative. 

Edwin  M.  Randall :  Does  the  motion  open  up  the  whole 
matter  for  amendment  and  arguments? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny):  The  Chair  would  think  not. 
We  have  gone  through  the  article,  item  by  item.  This  vote 
would  signify,  however,  approval  of  all  the  sections  as  re- 
lated to  each  other  and  of  the  whole. 

Edwin  M.  Randall :  If  it  opened  it  up  for  an  amendment,  I 
wished  to  offer  an  amendment. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  Chair  hardly  thinks 
that  is  the  case. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  The  motion  was  to  adopt  the  entire  article 
as  amended. 

A.  J.  Lamar :  I  move  the  previous  question  on  that. 
The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

Henry  W.  Rogers:  We  should  have  a  yea  and  nay  vote  on 
that. 

H.  M.  Du  Bose:  I  move  that  we  have  a  yea  and  nay  vote. 
This  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

A  roll  call  on  the  adoption  was  then  had. 
During  the  roll  call: 

Bishop  Cranston:  This  does  not  fulfill  my  idea  of  a  Judi- 
cial Council,  and  yet  I  favor  a  Judicial  Council.  I  think  for 
our  purposes  tentatively  I  will  vote  "aye." 

Bishop  Hamilton:  I  shall  vote  "aye"  tentatively. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  vote  "aye"  with  the  understanding  that 
it  is  subject  to  amendment  when  it  comes  to  the  final  adoption. 

I.  G.  Penn :  Does  the  Central  Conference  have  representa- 
tion on  the  Judicial  Council? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  No,  not  as  yet. 
L  G.  Penn:  I  vote  "no"  then. 

E.  C.  Reeves:  It  is  not  just  what  I  want,  but  it  is  the  best 
thing  in  sight  and  I  vote  "aye." 

The  result  of  the  roll  call  was  as  follows:  Ayes — Cranston, 
Hamilton,  McDowell,  Leete,  Cooke,  Blake,  Downey,  Goucher, 
Neff,  Randall,  Spencer,  Van  Cleve,  Wallace,  Brown,  Joy,  Har- 
ris, Kinne,  Pollock,  Simpson,  Watt,  Mouzon,  Thomas,  Young, 
Moore,  BSshop,  Chappell,  Ivey,  Watkins,  Du  Bose,  Lamar, 
Walton,  Snyder,  Maddin,  Reynolds,  Blackwell,  Hines,  Pepper, 
Reeves.  38.  Noes — Hoss,  Denny,  Murrah,  Ainsworth,  Hyer, 
White,  Jones,  Nast,  Penn,  Robinson,  Rogers.  II. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  That  disposes  of  that  report. 

Edgar  Blake:  The  next  is  the  report  of  the  Committee  of 
Eight. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Who  has  charge  of  that? 


182    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 
Edgar  Blake:  Dr.  Moore. 

John  M.  Moore:  The  Committee  of  Eight  has  had  no  meet- 
ing since  our  meeting  in  Savannah.  The  report  was  submit- 
ted and  was  acted  on  down  to  Section  4  of  Subsection  7 : 

Each  Central  Conference  Jurisdiction  shall  be  entitled  to  be  repre- 
sented in  the  General  Conference  by  five  ministerial  and  five  lay  dele- 
gates who  shall  be  elected  by  the  Central  Conference  at  a  regular  meet- 
ing preceding  the  meeting  of  the  General  Conference. 

There  was  a  motion  to  adopt  this  subsection,  and  then  there 
was  a  substitute  offered  by  Bishop  McDowell,  and  I  think, 
if  I  remember  correctly,  the  Commission  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  withdrew  and  brought  back  in  a  report  which  was 
virtually  an  indorsement  of  Bishop  McDowell's  proposal,  and 
that  proposal  is  in  this  printed  resume  of  proceedings.  I  am 
not  sure  that  this  is  in  the  hands  of  all  the  members  of  the  Com- 
mission, so  I  will  read  it: 

Section  1.  There  shall  be  constituted  the  following  groups,  to  be  known 
as  Central  Conferences : 

(1)  The  Central  Conference  for  Colored  People. 

(2)  The  Central  Conference  for  Latin  America. 

(3)  The  Central  Conference  for  Europe. 

(4)  The  Central  Conference  for  Eastern  Asia. 

(5)  The  Central  Conference  for  Southern  Asia. 

Sec.  2.  Each  Central  Conference  shall  be  represented  in  the  General 
Conference  as  follows: 

The  Central  Conference  for  Colored  People,  12 — six  ministers  and  six 
laymen. 

The  Central  Conference  for  Latin  America,  8 — four  ministers  and  four 
laymen. 

The  Central  Conference  for  Europe,  8 — four  ministers  and  four  laymen. 
The  Central  Conference  for  Eastern  Asia,  8 — four  ministers  and  four 
laymen. 

The  Central  Conference  for  Southern  Asia,  8 — four  ministers  and  four 
laymen. 

For  each  100,000  or  less,  8 — four  ministers  and  four  laymen.  Two 
additional  delegates,  one  minister  and  one  layman,  for  each  additional 
100,000  or  fractional  two-thirds  thereof,  up  to  600,000.    Maximum,  18. 

This  proposal  of  Bishop  McDowell's  was  offered  as  a  substi- 
tute for  Subsection  7,  which  has  been  read,  and  that  is  the 
status  of  the  question  as  left  at  Savannah. 

Bishop  McDowell  assumed  the  chair  as  Chairman. 

I.  G.  Penn:  I  offer  this  as  a  substitute  for  Subsection  7  of 
that  Section  4,  and  if  possible  also  of  Bishop  McDowell's : 

Each  Central  Conference  shall  be  entitled  to  be  represented  in  the 
General  Conference  by  one  ministerial  and  one  lay  delegate  for  each 
14,00a  Church  members  in  full  connection,  or  fraction  of  two-thirds 
thereof;  provided,  that  no  Annual  Conference  in  the  jurisdiction  of  a 
Central  Conference  shall  have  less  representatives  in  the  General  Con- 
ference than  one  minister  and  one  layman.  They  shall  be  elected  by  the 
Annual  Conference  preceding  the  meeting  of  the  General  Conference. 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


183 


By  way  of  explanation  let  me  say  that  the  colored  people  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  General  Conference  at  the  present 
have  eighty  colored  delegates,  and  this  plan  would  give  them 
fifty ;  Latin  America  has  six,  and  this  would  give  them  six ; 
the  European  Conferences  have  twenty-four  now,  and  this  would 
give  them  sixteen ;  Eastern  Asia  has  twenty  now,  and  this  would 
give  them  fourteen ;  Southern  Asia  has  eighteen  now,  and  this 
would  give  them  fourteen ;  Liberia  would  have  two — a  total  in 
the  reunited  Church  of  102  delegates,  as  against  150  now  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  General  Conference.  If  I  can  get 
a  second  to  this  motion,  I  would  like  to  use  my  five  minutes. 
The  motion  was  seconded. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  How  many  do  you  say  the  colored  mem- 
bership of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  now  in  this  coun- 
try would  have? 

I.  G.  Penn :  Fifty.  Several  times  in  our  discussions  at  this  ses- 
sion we  have  heard  such  expressions  as  "at  this  stage  of  the 
game,"  which  has  reminded  me  of  President  Wilson's  notable 
statement  with  regard  to  the  domination  of  Germany,  that  "peo- 
ples and  provinces  are  not  to  be  bartered  about  from  sover- 
eignty to  sovereignty,  as  if  they  were  mere  chattels  and  pawns 
in  a  game,  even  the  great  game,  now  forever  discredited,  of  the 
balance  of  power."  It  is  inconceivable  that  I  should  believe 
that  my  people  are  being  bartered  from  Church  to  Church  "as 
if  they  were  mere  chattels  and  pawns  in  a  game,"  even  the 
great  game  of  unification  of  American  Methodism ;  and  yet 
there  are  not  words  adequate  to  express  the  feeling,  which 
grows  deeply  with  the  colored  people,  that  somehow  their  status 
in  the  reorganized  Church  is  not  a  matter  for  discussion  in  the 
sense  that  they  are  to  be  singled  out  and  deprived  of  privileges, 
fellowship,  and  rights  which  they  now  peacefully  enjoy  in  the 
Church  of  their  choice,  when  no  other  people  in  the  home  field 
of  either  Church  are  being  thus  singled  out  for  a  deprivation 
of  rights.  Unification  is  to  be  desired  by  all  right-thinking 
Methodists,  if  not  purchased  by  the  heart's  blood  of  any  por- 
tion of  the  members,  parties  to  the  same,  for  we  are  living  in 
a  day  when  we  are  fighting  in  the  world  for  the  rights  of  weak- 
er peoples.  If,  therefore,  any  people,  however  weak  or  de- 
pendent, should  feel  that  they  had  been  wronged  in  the  matter, 
unification  would  have  a  scar  upon  it  forever.  Because  of  our 
intense  desire  that  unification  should  be  effected,  for  the  moment 
I  yielded  at  our  Savannah  meeting  to  the  suggestion  of  a  re- 
duction of  representation  of  the  negro  membership  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  the  reunited  Church.  Subsequent  discus- 
sion and  tentative  legislation  convinced  me  that  I  was  absolved 
from  any  such  tentative  yielding,  and  I  so  recorded  myself. 
But  still  further  thinking  convinced  me  beyond  any  doubt  that 


184    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

I  had  no  more  right  nor  should  the  negro  members  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Commission  be  expected  to  yield  sacred 
rights  of  equality  of  representation  of  the  negro  members  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  than  the  other  members  of 
the  Commission  should  yield  or  concede  the  rights  of  those 
whom  they  represent  from  the  standpoint  of  racial  identity. 
This  Joint  Commission  was,  however,  promised  some  direct  in- 
formation from  the  colored  people  as  to  whether  they  were  will- 
ing to  a  reduction  of  their  representation  in  the  General  Con- 
ference from  that  of  fifty  delegates,  with  increase  of  representa- 
tion in  proportion  to  increase  in  membership,  to  that  of  a  fixed 
representation  of  ten,  never  to  be  increased.  Our  people  have 
spoken  in  no  uncertain  way.  The  following  excerpt  from  a 
circular  signed  by  seventy-five  ministers  of  the  South  Carolina 
Conference  is  a  fair  sample  of  their  protest.   These  brethren  say: 

We  note,  further,  that  no  matter  what  may  be  our  material  progress, 
our  educational  or  religious  qualifications,  there  is  no  provision  whatever 
for  our  promotion  or  for  an  increased  representation  in  the  larger  councils 
of  the  Church  of  the  future. 

In  short,  we  are  put  in  a  class  by  ourselves  and,  like  children,  are  re- 
quired to  accept  a  disproportional.  arbitrary,  and  fixed  representation  in 
the  General  Conference,  not  to  exceed  ten,  and  these  must  sit  under 
fatherly  restrictions  and  limitations. 

Is  it  possible  in  all  the  world  to  find  a  company  of  intelligent  men  and 
women,  full  members  of  the  Church,  who  would  consent  to  such  a  proposi- 
tion as  this?  Surely  the  Church  and  Commission  do  not  intend  to  trifle 
with  us. 

The  proposed  plan  of  unification  seems  strange  to  us  when  we  remem- 
ber that  we  are  on  the  eve  of  a  world-wide  missionary  propaganda  and 
other  denominations  are  wisely  making  large  plans  for  the  development 
of  colored  work  within  the  Church.  For  example,  how  can  Protestantism 
compete  with  Catholicism,  where  all  of  her  members  are  on  a  parity? 

We  take  this  opportunity  to  say  in  all  brotherliness,  but  with  all  the 
power  the  English  language  can  express,  that  we  shall  never  accept  so 
unworthy  a  proposition.  In  the  sight  of  God  and  the  world  we  cannot 
brand  ourselves  and  our  children  and  our  children's  children  for  all  time 
as  being  the  inferiors  of  any  other  race.  We  admit  that  we  are  belated; 
but  if  we  can  secure  any  sort  of  justice  in  Church  and  State  we  will  climb 
to  that  place  where  we  can  demand  the  consideration  and  respect  of  those 
who  to-day  insist  that  we  are  something  less  than  men. 

But  the  voice  of  protest  at  such  reduction  of  our  people  comes 
not  alone  from  the  colored  members  of  the  Church.  The  great 
New  York  Conference,  in  body  assembled  in  Xewburgh,  N.  Y., 
April  3,  1918,  passed  a  resolution,  with  but  two  dissenting  votes, 
protesting  against  the  denial  to  the  negro  members  their  full 
measure  of  representation.  Here  is  one  sentence  from  the  reso- 
lution : 

Surely  it  cannot  be  possible  then  that  at  this  moment  of  all  moments 
in  the  history  of  the  world  there  shall  be  found  a  man  among  us  who 
would  really  entertain  the  suggestion  that  for  any  purpose  or  any  pretext 
whatever  we  should  wrest  from  our  colored  brethren  any  measure  of  their 
democratic  rights  in  the  Church  of  Christ. 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


185 


Nor  is  this  the  only  voice  in  support  of  the  claims  of  the  negro 
to  representation  in  the  General  Conference.  That  voice  of  a 
Southern  Methodist  minister  appearing  in  the  Christian  Advo- 
cate of  the  M.  E.  Church,  South,  is  as  clear  as  any  utterance 
coming  from  any  Northern  source.   Says  the  Rev.  Mr.  Newton : 

The  recognition  of  the  negro  is  finding  many  examples  in  these  days. 
A  few  months  ago  I  witnessed  in  one  of  our  Southern  towns  a  scene 
quite  new  and  impressive.  In  the  courthouse  was  held  a  farewell  func- 
tion to  a  few  colored  men  who  had  volunteered  for  the  army.  A  promi- 
nent young  lawyer  was  standing  before  them,  and  in  most  cordial  terms 
paid  those  colored  men  a  high  tribute  for  their  patriotism,  and  in  the  name 
of  the  blacks  and  whites  thanked  them  for  what  they  were  about  to  do. 
A  negro  preacher  from  the  same  platform  followed  the  white  lawyer  in 
a  most  appropriate  address.  Several  prominent  ladies  and  gentlemen 
of  the  town  were  present,  while  the  main  seats  in  front  were  occupied  by 
the  colored  people.  Did  these  ladies  and  gentlemen  compromise  them- 
selves?   Most  assuredly  not. 

On  the  anniversary  of  Washington's  birthday  there  was  in  the  City 
of  New  York  a  street  parade  of  ten  thousand  soldiers,  with  bands  of 
music  and  banners  galore.  Fifth  Avenue  was  lined  with  thousands  of 
our  people,  who  looked  on  with  keenest  interest.  As  the  last  of  the  troops 
passed  the  reviewing  stand  of  Brigadier  General  Johnson,  he  said  to 
Secretary  Daniels:  "I  am  proud  of  my  men."  Secretary  Daniels,  grasp- 
ing his  hand,  responded:  "I  am  very  much  pleased  with  the  showing  of 
the  men  of  the  National  Army,  and  I  am  especially  proud  of  the  colored 
men."  Secretary  Daniels  is  a  Methodist,  a  patriot,  and  a  Christian.  Shall 
the  Church  fall  behind  the  leaders  of  our  Army  and  Navy  in  giving  proper 
recognition  to  our  colored  brethren? 

Gentlemen,  the  world  is  changing.  To  help  bring  in  the  new 
world  and  the  new  day,  the  negro  is  buying  liberty  bonds  and 
thrift  stamps  and  farming  as  never  before  to  feed  our  armies. 
Last  Sunday  I  witnessed,  in  a  country  church  in  Maryland, 
negroes  answering  the  appeal  of  a  white  woman  by  giving  $50 
out  of  their  poverty  for  the  Red  Cross.  It  is  related  that  an  old 
black  woman  carried  her  dimes  and  nickles  to  a  bank  in  a  cer- 
tain city  sometime  ago,  and  when  asked  what  she  had  been  sav- 
ing so  many  dimes  and  nickles  for  she  said:  "Boss,  Fse  saved 
dat  money  to  bury  de  ole  woman  when  she  dies,  but  Fse  heard 
so  much  'bout  dat  turrible  Kaiser,  Fse  thought  Fd  buy  some  o' 
dem  shift  stamps  so  we  can  bury  dat  Kaiser."  Negro  soldiers 
of  the  Tenth  Cavalry,  I  am  informed,  are  guarding  General 
Pershing's  headquarters  somewhere  in  France.  Negro  soldiers 
for  a  long  time  guarded  the  White  House.  Negro  soldiers 
are  at  the  front.  In  the  language  of  Rev.  Mr.  Newton,  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  "Shall  the  Church  fall  be-, 
hind  the  leaders  of  our  Army  and  Navy  in  giving  proper  rec- 
ognition to  our  colored  brethren?"  The  General  Conference  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  1864  passed  the  following 
resolution : 


186    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

Resolved,  That  justice  to  those  who  have  been  enslaved  requires  that 
in  all  the  privileges  of  citizenship,  as  well  as  in  all  other  rights  of  a  com- 
mon manhood,  there  shall  be  no  distinction  founded  upon  color. 

Subsequent  legislation  in  the  General  Conference  was  to  the 
effect  that  "the  following  Conferences — namely,  Alabama, 
Delaware,  Georgia,  Holston,  Mississippi,  South  Carolina,  Ten- 
nessee, Texas,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  and  Washington — are 
hereby  declared  to  be  Annual  Conferences  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and  vested 
with  all  the  rights,  privileges,  and  immunities  usual  to  Annual 
Conferences  of  said  Church."  These  rights,  privileges,  and  im- 
munities conferred  upon  the  fathers  will  not  be  surrendered  by 
the  sons  upon  their  own  initiative  or  taken  from  them  without 
protest.  The  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  have 
said  to  the  General  Conference  of  1916  that  they  desired  and 
expected  the  continuance  of  a  colored  membership  in  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  as  a  part  of  Methodism's  world  program 
with  all  races.  We  will  not  cut  the  program  by  any  action  of 
ours.  This  I  believe  to  be  the  one  voice  of  the  310,000  full  mem- 
bers and  the  40,000  probationers. 

During  the  delivery  of  Mr.  Penn's  remarks  his  time  expired, 
and  on  motion  duly  made  and  seconded  it  was  extended. 

Bishop  Hamilton :  I  do  not  want  to  begin  my  remarks  with 
judgment  against  me  unfairly.  I  want  you  to  hear  me,  not  with 
reference  to  this  particular  amendment  only,  but  to  the  un- 
brotherly  treatment  involved  in  it,  which  really  determines  the 
whole  question :  First,  I  am  opposed  to  fixing  a  standard  for 
other  persons  that  does  not  apply  to  myself;  second,  I  am  op- 
posed to  it  because  it  discriminates  invidiously  against  the  mis- 
sionary people — now  hear  me — in  all  mission  stations  that  have 
the  possibility  of  coming  by  representation  into  the  General 
Conference — if  not  now,  later  on,  and  against  all  Annual  Con- 
ferences in  foreign  lands,  to  make  the  result  of  this  whole  move- 
ment utterly  ill  fitted  to  the  present  situation;  we  presume  to 
make  a  fixed  Regional  arrangement  for  the  Conferences  in 
Europe  when  no  such  association  could  possibly  be  made  with 
the  belligerent  nations  other  than  by  the  present  representation 
of  their  Annual  Conferences.  Certainly,  the  war  ought  not  to 
lead  us  to  discriminate  against  any  Annual  Conference  there  or 
in  Mexico  or  in  South  America.  Third,  it  is  opposed  by  the 
people  themselves.  I  have  heard  from  every  section  in  the 
world,  and  without  solicitation;  I  do  not  know  of  a  single  bish- 
op representing  a  foreign  field  that  is  in  favor  of  thus  discrim- 
inating against  his  territory  or  membership.  I  do  not,  in  the 
reunited  Church,  favor  the  violent  measure  of  doing  what  the 
people  themselves  do  not  want.  Again,  it  will  never  be  adopted 
by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  while  the  world  stands,  be- 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


187 


cause  you  cannot  expect  us  to  treat  all  the  missionary  territory 
and  Mission  Conferences  in  foreign  lands  in  the  reunited  Church 
in  any  such  way.  They  say,  I  repeat,  they  don't  want  such  a 
thing  and  protest  against  it,  and  you  cannot  by  any  force  or 
violence  vote  it  upon  them.  In  the  last  place,  it  ought  not  to  be 
done  by  any  such  procedure  in  conflict  with  all  the  history  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  to  say  nothing  of  the  teaching 
of  the  New  Testament.  I  say  nothing  now  about  such  treat- 
ment of  the  colored  people.  I  leave  you  to  discuss  that  matter, 
but  note  that  these  same  methods  used  in  dealing  with  them  are 
all  involved. 

A.  F.  Watkins:  I  move  the  previous  question. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  I  second  the  motion. 

Bishop  Leete :  I  want  to  protest  against  that  with  all  my  soul. 
We  ought  not  to  have  that  sprung  on  us. 

R.  E.  Jones:  It  is  a  sort  of  personal  matter,  but  I  hope  that 
will  not  obtain. 

A  vote  being  taken,  there  were  only  two  for  and  the  rest  of  the 
Commission  were  against  the  motion  for  the  previous  question. 

John  F.  Goucher:  I  shall  only  touch  one  point  in  the  five 
minutes  allotted  me.  We  are  legislating  for  a  world  Church. 
We  have  differentiated  it  on  the  basis  that  characterized  all 
of  the  administrative  organizations  in  Methodism  in  the  past. 
The  Annual  Conference,  the  Mission  Conference,  and  Missions 
have  their  organization  on  the  basis  of  numerical  strength  and 
ecclesiastical  efficiency  and  ability  to  maintain  the  work  and  car- 
ry on  the  program.  That  divides  the  Church  into  three  classes : 
racial,  linguistic,  and  national.  It  is  identically  the  same  basis 
as  obtains  in  the  United  States  between  the  colored  and  the 
non-colored.  Now  we  don't  propose  to  legislate  for  the  negro 
or  against  the  negro.  Now  there  is  a  mass  movement  on  in 
Indiana.  They  are  baptizing  a  thousand  a  week.  They  have 
raised  $1,000,000 — $200,000  a  year  to  provide  educational  facili- 
ties such  as  they  are.  Eighty  per  cent  of  them  are  illiterates. 
We  could  not  take  the  multitude  coming  to  us.  It  is  said  that 
before  1920  we  will  have  a  million  members.  That  would  mean 
71  ministerial  delegates  and  71  lays — 142.  That  would  put  142 
delegates  from  this  Central  Conference  into  your  General  Con- 
ference. A  small  matter  relatively,  but  what  would  be  the  effect 
of  their  coming  together,  not  to  legislate  for  local  interest,  not 
to  interpret  Methodism  for  their  constituency,  but  to  legislate 
for  the  connectional  interests?  What  do  they  know  about  it? 
Then  the  other  class — want  of  capacity  developed  because  of 
want  of  experience  and  opportunity.  There  are  promises  of  a 
mass  movement  starting  in  January.  This  differentiation  is  a 
necessity,  that  the  government  of  the  connectional  interests 
shall  be  in  the  hands  of  those  who  have  the  ecclesiastical  de- 


188    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

velopment  and  have  a  world  outlook,  that  are  in  the  habit  of 
grasping  and  wrestling  with  and  pondering  over  great  world 
problems.  There  is  no  legislative  distinction  here  that  is  not  re- 
movable. Therefore,  it  is  not  a  discrimination,  as  I  see  it,  such 
as  has  been  characterized  at  all;  no  injustice,  according  to  my 
thinking,  and  no  discrimination  that  is  not  removable  in  the 
plan  that  has  been  before  us  for  consideration — not  the  amend- 
ment, but  the  plan  before  us  is  the  broadest  and  wisest  and 
most  practicable  that  has  been  suggested  up  to  the  present  time, 
and  I  doubt  if  I  could  find  a  better.  I  am  radically  opposed 
to  the  amendment. 

Charles  W.  Kinne :  I  have  refrained  from  taking  much  of  the 
time  of  this  Commission  because  of  the  fact  that  these  questions 
have  been  more  ably  discussed  than  I  could  discuss  them.  If  I 
were  to  look  about  for  an  excuse  for  supporting  the  report  of 
the  Committee,  I  would  base  it  on  the  scriptural  injunction, 
"To  him  that  hath  shall  be  given,"  etc. 

Bishop  Hoss :  That  is  not  a  good  translation. 

C.  W.  Kinne :  I  am  not  thinking  of  the  translation.  It  is  lib- 
eral, not  literal.  It  seems  to  me  that  we  are  eminently  inconsist- 
ent. We  have  had  a  good  deal  of  talk  on  the  questions  of  Re- 
gional Conferences  and  as  to  homogeneity.  What  is  the  con- 
nection between  the  Conference  in  Asia,  India,  and  China  and 
the  color  question?  It  seems  to  me  we  have  made  a  great  mis- 
take in  coupling  up  the  question  of  the  negro  with  the  Asiatic 
Conferences.  Some  time  ago  I  had  a  conversation  with  Bishop 
Bashford,  and  he  said  the  objection  of  the  foreign  Conferences 
is  not  the  coupling  of  them  with  the  negroes,  but  that  they  are 
put  into  an  inferior  relation,  not  into  a  relationship  that  gives 
them  a  fair  chance  to  grow.  It  has  been  said  that  we  are  legislat- 
ing for  the  old  Church.  It  looks  to  me  as  though  we  are  legislat- 
ing for  a  Church  limited  in  its  territory  and  restricted  in  its  color 
and  racial  capacity,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  that  is  a  mistake  that 
we  are  making.  I  am  not  in  favor  altogether  of  this  substitute  of 
Dr.  Penn's,  because  I  do  not  believe  it  covers  the  ground  fully. 
It  came  unexpectedly,  and  I  am  not  prepared  to  present  an 
amendment.  I  think  the  question  could  be  reached  by  a  little 
different  classification,  but  I  am  opposed  to  the  principle  in- 
volved in  the  report  of  the  Joint  Committee  of  Eight  in  that  it 
injects  into  this  question  a  distinction  as  to  one  class  against 
another. 

M.  L.  Walton:  As  I  understand  this,  there  are  three  proposi- 
tions pending  before  us :  One  is  on  the  report  of  the  Committee 
of  Eight,  which  gives  a  fixed  number  of  ten.  This  amendment 
or  substitute  of  Bishop  McDowell's  would,  by  the  rule  of  pro- 
portion as  worked  out,  give  a  representation  of  twelve  and  in- 
crease the  number  by  six  more,  provided  there  is  an  increase  of 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


100,000  members  of  the  Colored  Methodist  Church.  Then  the 
proposition  represented  by  the  substitute  of  Dr.  Penn  would 
give  50  as  the  representation.  I  understand  that  to  be  in  brief 
the  relative  situation  and  position  of  the  three  papers  pending 
before  us. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  I  think  you  are  about  correct. 
M.  L.  Walton :  I  am  ready  to  vote. 

Bishop  Leete:  I  sympathize  with  these  brethren,  but  I  would 
like  to  avoid  any  unseeming  wrangle  over  the  question.  I  don't 
think  there  is  any  danger  of  any  such  thing  as  that,  and  I  felt  and 
still  feel  that  we  can  be  trusted  to  say  anything  we  want  to  say.  I 
am  willing  for  any  gentleman  to  say  anything  he  wants  to  say, 
and  we  will  not  wrangle  about  it.  I  am  willing  to  say  anything 
I  want  to  say,  and  I  hope  that  the  other  side  will  take  it  as 
good-naturedly.  Concerning  the  whole  matter,  I  have  felt  that 
we  have  erred  in  bringing  the  Asiatic  illiterates  into  an  organ- 
ization in  which  they  are  compared  and  contrasted  and  co- 
ordinated with  the  illiterate  groups  in  this"  country.  If  these 
Asiatics  were  people  who  never  had  had  an  opportunity  of  cul- 
ture, it  would  be  a  different  thing.  I  remember,  when  I  was 
a  boy  in  South  Carolina,  the  kind  of  negroes  there  were,  and  I 
know  the  kind  of  negroes  there  now  are  in  South  Carolina  better 
than  most  men  here.  I  know  the  better  class  of  negroes  as  well 
as  any  man  here,  and  I  am  absolutely  amazed  when  I  go  and 
see  great  congregations  of  people.  I  am  amazed  at  their  ap- 
pearance. I  am  amazed  at  the  way  they  are  able  to  read.  I  am 
amazed  at  their  comprehension  of  whatever  instructions  are 
given  them.  In  other  words,  I  seem  to  think  that  I  am  living 
on  earth  a  second  time  when  I  contrast  these  people  with  their 
past.  That  kind  of  a  negro  is  not  trying  to  embarrass  white  men 
in  their  social  relations.  In  the  city  where  I  live  are  three  Ne- 
gro District  Superintendents  of  my  own  Church.  Not  a  single 
one  of  them  has  ever  come  to  my  house.  I  have  been  living  there 
six  years,  and  not  one  of  them  has  ever  approached  my  house. 
I  never  have  said  a  word  to  any  of  them  about  that  matter;  but 
they  don't  come,  because  they  are  anxious  that  I  should  be 
unimpeded  in  my  social  relations.  If  they  had  business,  they 
have  called  up  and  over  the  telephone  we  made  arrangements 
to  transact  that  business  in  the  inside  office,  not  in  the  cor- 
ridor. In  Atlanta  I  have  noticed  that  the  pastors  of  white 
and  colored  churches  come  together  and  consult  week  after 
week  without  any  trouble  over  racial  matters,  and  I  am  ut- 
terly at  a  loss  to  see  why  we  should  be  afraid  of  having  20 
or  30  or  50  or  75  or  even  100  negroes — or,  as  one  mem- 
ber of  the  Southern  Church  says,  250.  He  says  that  if  we  can- 
not take  care  of  ourselves  with  250  colored  men  we  are  hardly 
worthy  of  consideration.    We  are  now  dealing  with  a  question 


190    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

that  does  not  have  to  do  with  any  social  affairs,  but  it  has  to 
do  with  the  kingdom  of  God.  As  I  understand  the  social 
code,  it  deals  with  matters  of  eating  and  drinking,  our 
private  life.  We  have  a  right  to  choose  our  associates.  I 
think  that  right  is  equal  on  both  sides  and  proper.  There  is  no 
such  thing  as  social  equality  anywhere  in  this  world,  and  it  is 
not  taught  anywhere  in  the  Bible  so  far  as  I  know.  The  social 
code  of  the  South  has  reference  to  personal  matters,  but  in 
matters  of  business  people  can  do  what  is  necessary  to  be  done. 
In  the  Church  of  God  we  are  dealing  with  still  other  matters. 
We  are  dealing  with  the  interests  of  Jesus  Christ,  we  are  deal- 
ing with  the  saving  of  the  world  from  sin,  and  I  tell  you,  men, 
we  shall  have  to  have  the  black  hands  and  hearts  with  us  or  we 
cannot  save  the  world.  And  when  we  come  to  deal  with  the  world 
outside  of  America  we  have  a  great  many  countries  where  it  is 
hard  to  tell  who  is  the  white  man  and  who  is  the  black.  Our 
missionaries  have  found  that  it  is  mighty  hard,  when  you  get 
outside  of  the  United  States,  to  tell  where  to  draw  that  line. 
It  seems  to  me  that  in  the  kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  transacting  His  business,  if  we  are  going  to  draw  the  line 
it  should  be  on  illiteracy  or  incompetency  to  deal  with  the  prob- 
lems of  the  Church,  and  not  upon  the  color  of  the  man's  skin  and 
not  upon  the  particular  race  with  which  he  happens  to  be  affiliated. 
And  I  feel  in  my  heart  that  we  could  properly  and  wisely  admit 
at  least  from  the  colored  segment  who  love  the  white  man  and 
do  not  hate  him  like  the  African  Churches  do — from  this  ele- 
ment of  the  colored  race,  which  has,  under  white  leader- 
ship, been  lifted  in  its  refinement  and  delicacy,  and  in  its  loyalty 
to  the  white  man's  principles  and  to  the  principles  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ — I  think  we  could  safely  admit  that  proportionate 
number  which  would  come  from  them  in  this  country  unr1er 
the  circumstances  we  are  now  dealing  with.  I  am  perfectly 
certain,  because  I  have  had  experience  with  them,  that  if  there 
were  fifty  negroes  put  into  the  General  Conference  you  would 
not  find  one  negro  in  the  fifty  who  would  stand  in  the  way  of 
any  measure  whatever  which  was  intended  to  promote  the  in- 
terest of  the  kingdom  of  God  or  build  up  the  cause  of  Meth- 
odism on  earth.  I  say  these  things  with  perfect  love  and  ap- 
preciation of  every  other  man's  position.  I  know  the  fears  of 
the  Southern  country  and  I  share  all  of  those  fears  myself 
absolutely.  I  know  just  what  is  the  problem  with  which  we  are 
dealing,  and  of  which  we  don't  talk  on  the  outside — and  Eh". 
Jones  knows  that  perfectly  well.  But  what  I  also  know  is  that 
after  fifty  years  of  efforts  we  have  produced  some  negroes  who 
are  willing  to  stand  with  us  on  a  program  which  is  a  perfectly 
Christian  program,  a  perfectly  workable  program,  and  a 
program  which  can  be  based  upon  the  principles  enunciated  by 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


191 


the  Son  of  God  himself.  You  can  do  what  you  want  with  your 
little  legislation  and  your  little  organization,  but  sometime  or 
other,  when  you  are  dealing  with  a  problem  like  this,  you  will 
have  to  get  your  system  in  harmony  with  the  principles  of  Him 
who  suffered  for  all  men. 

R.  E.  Jones :  I  have  no  thought  of  prolonging  this  discus- 
sion. As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  have  no  speech  to  make  this  morn- 
ing. I  greatly  enjoyed  yesterday's  session.  I  feel  that  if  we 
could  approach  the  whole  question  as  we  approached  the  diffi- 
culties of  yesterday  we  would  not  be  very  far  from  a  solution. 
I  am  as  much  for  organic  union  as  I  have  ever  been.  I  pray 
for  it,  and  dislike  to  be  a  rock  upon  which  there  shall  be  any 
sort  of  difficulty.  I  support  the  substitute.  I  cannot  agree  to 
the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Eight,  and  I  don't  think  I  could 
change  opinion  here  this  morning.  I  am  frank  about  that. 
A  good  deal  has  been  said  about  the  protection  of  the  minority. 
A  good  deal  has  been  said  about  that.  So  far  as  I  am  con- 
cerned about  the  minority,  I  am  willing  to  take  my  chance  on 
the  pro  rata  representation  in  the  General  Conference.  What 
do  we  give  up?  Some  will  say,  You  insist  upon  everything.  If 
we  take  the  Central  Conference,  that  is  a  different  Conference 
from  the  Regional  Conference — you  are  giving  us  a  missionary 
status.  I  am  frank  to  say  that  I  do  not  believe  in  that.  That  is 
a  sort  of  autocracy.  You  might  as  well  say  that  a  large  Con- 
ference that  could  give  a  million  should  have  larger  representa- 
tion than  a  small  Conference.  I  don't  believe  in  that.  I  don't 
believe  in  the  fixed  status,  because  it  is  un-American,  thoroughly 
so.  It  is  un-Southern,  thoroughly  so.  There  is  not  a  State  in 
the  South  that  has  not  a  qualified  suffrage.  And  if  there  are 
not  forty  or  fifty-four  men  in  the  whole  350,000  who  can  come 
in  and  be  with  you,  then  I  feel  sorry  for  the  missionary  work. 
I  am  a  member  of  a  council  in  the  city  of  New  Orleans  where 
white  and  colored  men  meet  together  on  terms  of  absolute  equal- 
ity. I  am  admitted  to  that  council  and  we  legislate  together; 
white  men  sit  with  colored  men  and  we  exchange  views.  Fur- 
thermore, you  are  putting  entirely  too  much  stress  on  my  pa- 
triotism and  you  are  denying  me  entirely  too  much  when  you 
expect  me  to  furnish  my  quota  to  help  win  the  war — and  you 
cannot  win  without  us,  you  simply  cannot  win  without  us — 
you  are  putting  entirely  too  much  stress  on  my  patriotism 
when  you  cannot  give  me  a  fair  deal  in  a  matter  like  this.  I 
am  anxious  that  organic  union  shall  succeed.  I  hold  in  my 
hand  a  telegrlam  from  the  Washington  Preachers'  Meeting, 
and  these  brethren  are  unwilling  to  accept  such  a  reduction  in 
representation,  and  that  represents  nearly  95  per  cent  of  the 
negro  membership  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  I 
want  to  call  your  attention  to  one  other  thing.    It  does  not  con- 


192    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

cern  us  only,  the  350,000  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
— that  is  a  small  matter.  I  have  here  a  letter  received  in  the 
mail  this  morning,  and  I  read  the  first  paragraph.  It  is  from 
the  editor  of  the  official  paper  of  the  African  Methodist  Church : 
"First,  I  want  to  write  you  in  appreciation  of  the  splendid 
stand  you  are  taking  in  your  paper  on  the  subject  of  union  be- 
tween the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South.  I  believe  that  the  whole  race  stands  with 
you  in  this."  And  whatever  we  do  here  is  interpreted  as  your 
attitude  toward  us  as  a  people.  There  are  350,000 — but  there 
are  ten  or  twelve  million  of  this  race  altogether.  I  know  your 
minds  are  made  up.  If  there  is  any  man  from  the  South  who 
has  intense  convictions  on  suffrage,  let  him  grant  me  all  of  the 
same  convictions  on  the  other  side.  We  simply  differ.  We  are 
frank  on  that  equally  so  with  you.  I  shall  do  all  I  can  to  stand 
with  your  brothers  and  put  over  this  program  of  organic  union, 
but  we  ask  that  the  program  be  based  on  justice. 

Rolla  V.  Watt :  I  am  sorry  to  speak  again,  but  since  our  meet- 
ing at  Savannah  I  have  been  thinking  of  this  matter  because 
it  seemed  to  me  that  we  were  doing  an  absolute  injustice  to  a 
section  of  our  members,  such  injustice  as  I  would  resent  if 
it  affected  me  in  my  rights  in  the  Church'.  At  the  same  time 
Dr.  Goucher  has  made  it  perfectly  plain  that  the  adoption  of 
the  amendment  of  Dr.  Penn  would  be  an  extremely  dangerous 
thing.  I  do  not  know  how  the  measure  can  be  adjusted  except 
by  rewriting  the  whole  matter.  I  am  absolutely  in  favor  of 
proportionate  representation  of  the  colored  members  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference.  I  think  they  are  entitled  to  it,  and  that  we 
should  not  take  it  from  them ;  but  I  cannot  feel  that  I  could  vote 
for  the  ten  amendments  in  their  present  form  by  which  the 
large  membership  in  India  would  have  the  same  representation 
that  that  amendment  would  give  to  the  colored  people. 

David  G.  Downey :  Will  you  permit  a  question  or  suggestion  ? 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  Yes. 

David  G.  Downey :  That  large  membership  in  India  is  only 
a  matter  of  prophecy. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  I  agree  with  that,  but  at  the  present  time  we 
provide  an  alternative  amendment.  Eight  for  Latin  America, 
eight  for  Europe,  eight  for  Eastern  Asia,  eight  for  South- 
ern Asia.  I  think  those  are  the  figures.  These  amendments 
would  increase  the  number  in  Europe  to  ten  and  in  Eastern 
Asia  to  fourteen  and  Southern  Asia  to  fourteen,  and  if  we  are 
as  successful  as  we  hope  to  be  the  membership  there  will  in- 
crease very  rapidly.  Why  are  we  going  to  raise  $80,000,000 
for  missionary  work  if  we  do  not  expect  the  Church  to  grow 
with  rapidity?  How  can  we  expect  these  people  from  heathen- 
ism to  be  competent  to  legislate  for  Methodism  in  the  future? 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


193 


I  am  afraid  of  that.  I  do  not  want  to  be  wrong  on  a  matter  so 
important  as  this.  I  feel  that  the  colored  membership  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  entitled  to  full  pro  rata  repre- 
sentation in  any  legislative  body  that  we  may  form,  and  with 
that  expression  I  close. 

Claudius  B.  Spencer:  I  would  like  to  address  myself  for  a 
moment  to  the  proposition  raised  by  Dr.  Goucher  and  referred 
to  by  Mr.  Watt.  Are  we  not  really  making  a  strange  and  il- 
logical alignment  when  we  align  the  colored  Methodists  of  this 
country  with  the  native  races  of  Africa?  Is  not  that  as  a  mat- 
ter of  fact  the  pivotal  difficulty?  The  colored  membership  of 
this  country  is  an  American  Church.  What  affinity  have  the 
colored  people  in  this  country  with  the  colored  people  of  Africa? 
When  I  take  up  this  plan,  I  read  in  Subsection  3  of  Section  4, 
on  page  5: 

Subject  to  the  limitations  and  restrictions  of  this  Constitution,  each 
Central  Conference  shall  have  full  legislative  power  over  all  distinctively 
regional  affairs  within  its  area,  including  the  power  to  fix  the  boundaries 
of  Annual  Conferences,  Mission  Conferences,  and  Missions,  and  to  provide 
for  the  organization  of  the  same;  provided  that  no  new  Annual  Confer- 
ence shall  be  organized  in  the  States  of  the  United  States  with  less  than 
fourteen  thousand  Church  members  in  full  connection  therewith. 

I  beg  to  ask  this  Commission  on  what  principle  the  colored 
membership  in  this  country  can  legislate  upon  the  affairs  of 
Africa,  and  upon  what  principle  can  the  members  of  the  Con- 
ferences in  Portuguese  West  Africa  and  in  Pretoria  or  the  Bel- 
gian Congo  legislate  on  the  affairs  of  the  colored  people  in  this 
country?  I  propound  that  to  you  as  fair-minded  men.  How  can 
you  link  those  two  propositions  and  make  them  workable? 
If  you  do  make  a  Regional  Conference  of  the  colored  people  of 
Africa  south  of  the  equator,  as  is  asked  to  be  done,  in  order  that 
the  people  may  get  together  and  discuss  the  questions  that  bear 
upon  their  prosperity  and  the  existence  of  their  work,  and  if  you 
make  a  Regional  Conference  of  Africa,  you  will  have  jurisdic- 
tions as  large  as  our  own  to  handle  its  problems.  If  this  is 
borne  in  mind,  we  have  a  line  of  division  where  we  can  give  full 
effect  to  the  principles  of  Dr.  Goucher,  and  in  which  we  all 
share  and  also  take  care  of  the  matter  brought  to  our  attention 
by  Mr.  Watt. 

Charles  A.  Pollock:  I  cannot  vote  upon  this  amendment  of 
Dr.  Penn's  intelligently.  I  shall  have  to  vote  against  it,  if  I 
do  vote  as  the  present  situation  presents  itself,  because  of  the 
reasons  given  by  Dr.  Goucher.  It  seems  to  me  we  are  not 
having  the  real  question  presented  here  concretely  so  that  we 
could  vote  "yes"  or  "no"  upon  the  real  question  we  want  to 
have  determined.  I  do  not  know  whether  the  parliamentary 
situation  would  permit  it,  but  I  do  think  that  we  should  have 
13 


194    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

presented  to  us  something  like  this :  That  in  paragraph  i  of 
Section  I,  now  under  consideration,  we  omit  the  last  four  words, 
take  the  words  "Annual  Conferences,  Mission  Conferences,  and 
Missions,"'  and  add  the  words  "among  the  colored  people  in 
the  United  States."  Omit  the  last  five  words  and  then,  if  the 
parliamentary  situation  would  permit,  have  a  motion  by  which 
that  could  be  added  right  after  "Regional  Conferences,"  on 
page  2,  right  after  Xo.  6,  and  make  that  No.  7,  and  thus  put  the 
colored  people  of  the  United  States  and  the  Missions  there 
into  a  Regional  Conference  in  this  country,  that  would  per- 
fect the  question  and  would  give  the  colored  people  in  this 
country,  if  it  were  adopted,  the  same  power  and  the  same  rights 
and  the  same  representation  that  the  other  Regional  Confer- 
ences have.  That  issue  we  have  to  meet. 
Rolla  V.  Watt :  That  is  right. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  I  have  been  looking  over  this  document 
that  is  brought  before  us,  the  proposed  legislation,  to  get  a 
comparison  of  the  powers  granted  to  the  Regional  Conferences 
and  to  the  Central  Conference,  and  there  is  just  one  distinction. 
There  is  no  difference  at  all  as  to  the  powers  of  those  two  Dodies 
except  in  the  matter  of  representation  in  the  General  Confer- 
ence. The  representation  in  the  General  Conference  must  not 
be  less  than  100.  The  proposed  representation  of  the  Central 
Conference  provides  that  it  shall  not  be  more  than — it  would 
appear  that  the  effect  of  that  legislation,  whatever  the  intention 
is,  is  to  let  one  factor  up  and  the  other  factor  down.  That  dif- 
ference is  absolutely  fundamental.  I  recognize  the  cogency  of 
what  Dr.  Goucher  said  a  while  ago,  and  the  problems  that  we 
shall  have  after  a  while.  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  question  but 
that  they  will  come  upon  us;  but  if  I  have  to  make  a  choice  be- 
tween this  report  and  the  proposed  amendment  by  Dr.  Penn,  I 
shall  be  compelled  to  vote  for  the  amendment.  I  am  perfectly 
willing  to  consent  to  any  kind  of  restrictions  or  limitations  that 
the  colored  membership  in  our  Church  are  willing  to  take 
upon  themselves ;  but  I  have  not  been  able  to  persuade 
myself  to  consent,  against  their  consent,  to  some  other  body — 
and  as  between  the  matter  of  ten  delegates  and  fifteen  delegates, 
that  kind  of  restriction,  I  cannot  see  any  great  difference.  There 
is  as  much  of  a  recognition  of  principle  in  ten  as  in  proportion- 
ate representation.  That  reminds  me  of  the  report  of  the  parlia- 
mentary committee  appointed  to  investigate  a  report  that  gun- 
powder had  been  laid  under  the  House  of  Commons.  They 
reported  to  the  House  that  they  had  discovered  that  there  were 
twenty-five  barrels  of  gunpowder,  that  they  had  ten  of  them  re- 
moved, and  hoped  the  rest  would  do  no  harm.  I  think  if  we  are 
going  to  make  a  restriction  we  should  go  to  the  root  of  the  case 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


195 


or  not  try  to  deal  with  it  at  all.  I  think  that  is  the  conviction  of 
the  Church  I  represent. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  I  want  to  offer  a  resolution  which  I  think  is  in 
the  nature  of  the  privilege  of  the  body.  If  it  is  in  order,  I 
move  that  a  vote  on  this  question  be  taken  not  later  than  one 
o'clock. 

H.  M.  Du  Bose:  I  second  the  motion. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  My  reason  for  introducing  this  motion  is  the 
same  as  actuated  me  when  I  seconded  the  previous  matter. 
While  we  are  approaching  this  question  for  the  first  time  with 
a  view  of  definite  action,  we  have  discussed  it  for  a  week  at 
Savannah  and  incidentally  on  almost  every  other  question  we 
have  had  up,  and  I  think  that  everything  that  can  be  said  with 
profit  has  already  been  said.  I  want  to  follow  this  up  this  after- 
noon, or  this  morning  if  we  have  time  before  adjournment, 
with  this  resolution:  "That  our  Secretaries  publish  a  paper, 
similar  to  the  one  recently  published,  setting  forth  what  we 
have  done,  and  what  we  have  not  done,  and  that  that  paper 
arranged  by  the  Secretaries  be  presented  to  the  General  Con- 
ference as  the  report  of  this  Commission/'  Then  I  want  to 
move  that,  instead  of  adjourning  to-morrow  at  five  o'clock  and 
making  it  necessary  for  everybody  to  travel  on  Sunday,  we  fix 
our  final  adjournment  this  afternoon  at  not  later  than  6:30.  I 
believe  that  whole  program  can  go  through  advantageously. 
I  think  we  shall  have  accomplished  by  that  time  everything 
that  we  can  accomplish  if  we  stay  here  all  day  to-day  and  to- 
morrow, and  that  will  enable  many  of  these  delegates  to  get 
home  without  traveling  on  Sunday,  which  I  think  is  very  de- 
sirable. If  you  don't  adjourn  until  five  o'clock  to-morrow,  as 
already  fixed,  I  have  to  stay  over  here  until  Monday  while  you 
are  traveling  on  Sunday.  If  you  adjourn  this  afternoon  at  five 
o'clock,  I  can  get  off  with  the  rest  of  you  and  be  at  home  in  my 
own  church  on  Sunday. 

C.  M.  Bishop:  I  am  opposed  to  hastening  through  to  a  vote, 
because  of  the  psychological  situation,  because  of  the  danger 
that  we  go  away  hastily,  separating  again  into  two  distinct 
antagonistic  bodies,  misunderstanding  each  other  as  we  have 
been  misunderstanding  each  other  for  a  long  term  of  years. 
I  quite  understand  the  intensity  of  feeling  and  also  what  seems 
to  be  the  intellectual  clarity,  so  far  as  they  are  conscious  of  the 
meaning  of  their  own  thinking  and  the  attitude  which  they  oc- 
cupy, of  the  brethren  who  have  spoken  this  morning.  I  should 
like  to  reply  to  those  brethren.  There  are  questions  concerning 
this  matter  that  have  not  been  referred  to  remotely  this  morn- 
ing, and  if  we  were  to  close  now  within  a  half  an  hour  and  when 
the  whole  big  problem  that  is  involved  in  this  matter  of  the  rela- 
tions of  the  white  Methodists  of  this  country  to  the  colored 


196    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

Methodists  of  this  country  has  not  been  brought  to  our  atten- 
tion and  been  considered  in  all  its  various  relationships,  an  in- 
justice would  be  done  to  somebody — and  I  am  willing-  to  con- 
fess I  think  it  would  be  to  the  company  to  which  I  belong.  I  am 
not  willing  to  be  represented  before  the  world  nor  with  you  as 
in  the  attitude  which  I  conceive  the  discussion  so  far  seems  to 
put  my  section  and  my  Church  in.  It  is  not  a  mere  question  of 
justice,  but  a  comparatively  small  company  of  our  colored  fel- 
low citizens  that  are  involved,  and  I  will  not  be  put  in  the 
position  of  taking  the  stand  which  would  consent  for  a  single 
moment  to  injustice  to  those  men.  I  do  not  want  to  be  misun- 
derstood by  you  brethren,  and  I  think  I  speak  for  the  entire 
Commission  to  which  I  belong.  These  have  been  most  delight- 
ful days  that  we  have  spent  together,  and  we  have  frequently 
congratulated  ourselves  upon  the  fact  that  we  have  come  to 
know  each  other  so  well  that  we  are  happy  in  this  association 
and  far  friendlier  than  ever  before ;  but  I  do  not  want  you  to 
go  away  misunderstanding  us  and  I  do  not  want  to  go  away 
misunderstanding  you.  I  do  not  want  to  go  back  to  my  people 
and  say  that  the  brethren  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
including  the  colored  representatives,  are  so  completely  con- 
cerned with  their  own  small  fragment  of  the  colored  population 
that  they  will  not  listen  to  us.  I  do  not  believe  you  are  willing  to 
be  put  in  that  attitude,  and  I  am  therefore  opposed  to  any  hasten- 
ing to  a  conclusion  on  the  part  of  the  gentlemen  of  the  Commis- 
sion. I  think  we  have  a  right  to  be  heard  with  reference  to 
this  delicate  and  most  complicated  question  of  the  relation  be- 
tween the  races  and  the  relation  which  Methodism  in  America 
bears  to  this  colored  race  that  we  cannot  get  rid  of  and  that  we  do 
not  want  to  get  rid  of,  that  we  want  to  serve,  that  we  want  to 
elevate  to  the  highest  human  possibility  so  far  as  our  service 
can  elevate  them.  We  are  not  willing  to  be  misunderstood  with 
reference  to  that.  It  is  our  problem,  and  we  want  to  solve  it. 
We  don't  think  you  are  approaching  it  in  the  right  way,  and  we 
want  you  at  least  to  see  our  standpoint. 

Bishop  McDowell :  Dr.  Bishop  will  remember  that  the  motion 
for  a  vote  at  one  o'clock  was  not  made  by  a  Northern  Commis- 
sioner, but  made  by  Judge  Lamar. 

C.  M.  Bishop :  Dr.  Lamar. 

Bishop  McDowell:  Yes,  I  am  getting  mixed  up  on  my  titles. 
No  one  is  more  judicial  than  he.  I  think  we  ought  not  to  vote 
at  one  o'clock.  That  is  the  subject  before  us  now.  Indeed  I 
think  just  now,  in  the  mood  we  are  in,  in  the  rather  nervous 
tension  we  are  in,  we  would  do  a  whole  lot  better  to  pray  for 
composure  and  for  calmness  and  for  absolute  freedom  from  any 
spirit  of  haste,  and  I  would  a  lot  rather  cancel  all  the  engage- 
ments I  have  on  hand  for  Sunday  and  all  the  engagements  I 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


197 


have  over  in  the  next  week,  if  necessary,  than  to  hurry  now. 
What  Dr.  Bishop  has  just  said  with  reference  to  the  rights  of 
the  Southern  Commissioners  to  be  perfectly  understood  is  per- 
fectly true.  We  have  but  one  question  in  our  minds  this  morn- 
ing, and  we  want,  God  helping  us,  if  we  can,  to  see  our  way 
through  to  unification.  We  want  to  see  it  in  the  best  way  and 
in  the  best  time.  Now  is  the  hour  for  us  to  stay  and  study, 
and  not  hurry.  We  do  not  want  to  vote  that  motion  down,  but 
I  would  be  glad  if  you  would  withdraw  it. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  I  will  withdraw  it,  but  before  I  do  I  want  to 
say  this :  We  acted  exceedingly  unwisely  with  the  grave  ques- 
tion before  us  when  we  decided  to  adjourn  finally  to-morrow 
afternoon.  You  can  accomplish  everything  to-day  that  you  can 
accomplish  by  that  time.  I  withdraw  my  motion  now,  and  if 
you  will  permit  me  I  wish  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  we 
fixed  final  adjournment  for  to-morrow  at  five  o'clock. 

Bishop  Denny :  I  rise  to  a  point  of  order.  I  think  that  will  be 
by  unanimous  consent.  The  time  to  move  that  reconsideration 
*  would  have  been  when  the  minutes  of  the  succeeding  session 
were  read.  That  was  not  done  then.  Of  course,  if  there  is  a 
general  demand,  it  can  be  taken  up  by  common  consent,  but 
parliamentarily  it  is  out  of  order. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  I  amend  the  motion  then  and  move  that  we  re- 
scind the  action  by  which  we  decided  to  adjourn  to-morrow 
afternoon. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  The  Chair  thinks — 
Bishop  Hoss:  That  is  the  most  unjudicial  thing  I  ever  heard 
of. 

The  motion  was  seconded  by  Mr.  Pepper. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  The  Chair  does  not  know 
of  any  rule  by  which  that  can  be  declared  out  of  order.  As 
many  of  you  as  are  in  favor  of  rescinding  this  action  raise  your 
hands. 

The  result  of  the  count  was  announced  as  20  to  20. 
M.  L.  Walton :  I  would  like  to  have  that  vote  taken  over  again. 
The  vote  was  taken  by  standing,  and  the  result  was  announced 
as  26  to  18. 

So  the  motion  to  rescind  prevailed. 

H.  M.  Du  Bose:  May  I  say  for  myself  personally  on  these 
matters  that,  while  this  is  a  majority  vote,  I  am  under  an  ab- 
solute necessity  to  go  away  to-morrow?  and  I  beg  to  suggest 
to  the  brethren  to  use  all  diligence  to  finish  this  business  be- 
tween now  and  the  time  originally  fixed  for  adjournment,  so 
that  those  who  are  compelled  to  go  can  go. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Prefer  your  request  to- 
morrow morning,  and  I  think  matters  will  shape  themselves  for 


198    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


an  adjournment  to-morrow  afternoon  for  the  accommodation 
of  those  who  wish  to  go  away ;  yet  we  ought  not  to  hurry. 

Bishop  McDowell :  We  have  been  in  the  habit  of  working 
up  to  one  o'clock  and  then  meeting  at  three  o'clock,  and  I  am 
about  to  move  that  we  take  a  recess  now  until  2  130,  which  will 
simply  shift  the  matter  a  half  an  hour.    I  make  that  motion. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and  was  carried. 

Before  adjournment  the  Joint  Committee  heretofore  provided 
for  was  announced  as  follows :  Bishop  Cooke,  Dr.  Stuart,  and 
Dr.  Joy;  Bishop  Mouzon,  Dr.  Chappell,  and  Mr.  E.  W.  Hines. 

Bishop  Cooke :  I  would  like  to  be  excused. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  It  is  a  duty  for  which 
you  are  eminently  qualified,  and  we  will  not  excuse  you. 

The  meeting  then  received  a  benediction  from  Bishop  E.  E. 
Hoss  and  adjourned. 

Afternoon  Session. 

The  meeting  was  called  to  order  by  Bishop  Earl  Cranston. 
The  hymn,  "Nearer,  my  God,  to  me,"  was  sung. 
Prayer  was  ofTered  by  Bishop  Murrah  and  also  by  Dr.  David 
G.  Downey. 

The  thirty-sixth  Psalm  was  read  responsively. 
The  hymn,  "O  how  happy  are  they,  who  the  Saviour  obey," 
was  sung. 

The  minutes  were  read,  corrected,  and  approved. 

The  roll  call  showed  the  following  present :  Bishops  E.  E. 
Hoss,  Collins  Denny,  E.  D.  Mouzon,  W.  B.  Murrah,  from  the 
M.  E.  Church,  South;  Earl  Cranston,  J.  W.  Hamilton,  W.  F. 
McDowell,  F.  D.  Leete,  R.  J.  Cooke,  from  the  M.  E.  Church. 
Ministers:  F.  M.  Thomas,  W.  J.  Young,  J.  M.  Moore,  C.  M. 
Bishop,  E.  B.  Chappell,  T.  N.  Ivey,  A.  F.  Watkins,  H.  M.  Du 
Bose,  \V.  N.  Ainsworth,  A.  J.  Lamar,  from  the  M.  E.  Church, 
South ;  Edgar  Blake,  D.  G.  Downey,  J.  F.  Goucher,  R.  E. 
Jones,  A.  J.  Nast,  Frank  Xeff,  E.  M.  Randall,  C.  B.  Spencer, 
J.  W.  Van  Cleve,  J.  J.  Wallace,  from  the  M.  E.  Church. 
Laymen:  M.  L.  Wralton,  H.  N.  Snyder,  P.  D.  Maddin,  R.  S. 
Hyer,  J.  H.  Reynolds,  R.  E.  Blackwell,  J.  R.  Pepper,  E.  C. 
Reeves,  H.  H.  White,  E.  W.  Hines,  from  the  M.  E.  Church, 
South;  G.  W.  Brown,  A.  W.  Harris,  C.  W.  Kinne,  I.  G.  Penn, 
I.  E.  Robinson,  H.  W.  Rogers,  Alexander  Simpson,  Jr.,  Rolla 
V.  Watt,  J.  R.  Joy,  C.  A.  Pollock,  from  the  M.  E.  Church. 
Rev.  C.  M.  Stuart,  alternate. 

Bishop  Collins  Denny  took  the  chair  as  presiding  officer. 

A  letter  addressed  to  the  Commission  by  Dr.  Byars,  Dis- 
trict Superintendent  of  the  Missouri  District,  was  read. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  business  is  the  motion 
ofTered  by  Dr.  Penn. 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


Bishop  McDowell :  Reference  was  made  by  Dr.  Penn  this 
morning  to  a  telegram  received  from  a  Preachers'  Meeting  of 
the  Washington  Conference,  saying  that  the  Washington 
Preachers'  Meeting  of  the  Washington  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  representing  40  ministers  and 
10,000  laymen,  wish  to  go  on  record  as  being  uncompromising- 
ly and  unalterably  opposed  to  any  scheme  of  unification  which 
means  the  reduction  of  the  status  of  the  negro  as  it  now  is 
in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Dr.  Penn  made  reference  . 
to  that  and  it  was  sent  to  me  also. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  Chair  is  ready  to  give 
recognition  to  any  member  of  the  Commission  who  seeks  it. 

Bishop  E.  E.  Hoss:  If  I  speak  a  little  slowly,  you  will  un- 
derstand it  is  not  because  I  want  to,  but  because  I  cannot 
speak  otherwise.  A  friend  of  mine  asked  me  last  year  if  I 
had  suffered  any  serious  results  following  my  attack  of  facial 
paralysis,  and  I  told  him  I  could  not  notice  any  particular  re- 
sults except  that  it  had  slowed  down  my  fluency.  He  said : 
"It  is  a  great  misfortune  that  it  didn't  slow  you  down  25  per 
cent  more."  By  the  law  of  averages  I  am  entitled  to  talk  slow- 
ly for  the  rest  of  my  life.  I  did  an  immense  amount  of  talking 
in  my  earlier  and  better  years,  and  I  am  not  complaining  now 
that  I  must  talk  deliberately.  In  regard  to  the  matter  that  is 
before  us  I  have  not  much  to  say.  I  really  think  it  is  a  prob- 
lem of  you  brethren  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  more 
than  it  is  ours.  We  have  no  colored  problem  now  of  this  sort. 
We  had  one  up  to  1866,  when  the  war  closed,  when  we  still 
had  207,000  colored  brothers,  and  I  venture  the  assertion  that 
they  were  as  good  colored  people  as  could  be  found  on  the 
face  of  the  earth.  When  the  war  closed  everybody  was  anx- 
ious to  get  our  colored  members.  There  was  a  perfect  rush 
for  them.  The  Zion  brethren  were  there  in  force  and  vig- 
or. The  Afro-Americans  were  there  in  force  and  vigor. 
It  was  a  little  bit  remarkable  that  those  two  Churches  empha- 
sized their  separateness  in  their  very  names  and  have  kept  it 
up  to  this  very  time.  One  of  these  Churches  is  supposed  to 
have  a  million  members  and  it  hasn't  anybody  but  Africans  in 
it.  I  might  add  that  you  were  there  in  force  trying  to  get  our 
members  too.  There  never  was  any  more  vigorous  campaign 
than  there  was  waged  at  that  time  in  the  South  to  tempt  our 
members  away  from  us.  I  am  not  complaining  about  that.  I 
am  too  old  to  complain  about  anything.  I  think  you  did  very 
well  with  them  after  you  once  got  hold  of  them.  I  have  never 
quite  approved  of  the  way  in  which  you  got  them.  In  less  than 
one  year  we  lost  about  40,000  colored  members.  And  we 
hadn't  turned  a  soul  of  them  out.  We  had  not  expelled  them 
as  individuals  nor  sent  them  apart  as  bodies  of  our  own  vo- 


200    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

lition.  We  simply  passed  a  law  at  that  General  Conference, 
a  provision  which  made  it  possible  for  them  to  do  in  a  regu- 
larly and  orderly  manner  what  they  were  in  danger  of  doing 
irregularly  and  in  a  disorderly  manner.  They  were  going  to 
leave  us  anyhow,  and  we  thought  it  was  the  more  decent  thing 
for  us  to  consult  their  wishes  and  to  set  them  up  to  themselves. 
[Bishop  Hoss's  time  here  expired  and  was  on  motion  extended.] 
And  so  we  did  not  set  them  off,  but  set  them  up.  We  did 
for  them  what  was  never  done  for  the  Zionites  who  left  you. 
They  didn't  leave  us.  They  left  you  in  New  York.  What 
was  ever  done  for  the  African  Methodists  who  left  you  in 
Philadelphia?  We  retained  them  and  gave  them  full-fledged 
bishops,  men  of  their  choice.  True,  they  were  picked  out  as 
far  as  possible  by  the  leaders  of  our  Church,  but  they  were 
admirable  men.  There  were  very  few  equals  in  America  of 
Bishop  Miles  or  of  Bishop  Holsey.  I  don't  know  of  any  bet- 
ter colored  man  than  Bishop  Lane.  He  knows  all  of  our  Con- 
ferences and  we  know  him.  We  have  good  reason  to  know 
him.  He  has  been  present  at  almost  every  Conference  that  I 
have  attended  and  I  was  always  glad  to  see  him.  I  don't  know 
how  many  times  I  have  been  to  the  college  at  Jackson.  It 
was  a  wonderful  piece  of  work  he  did  there.  He  deserves 
great  honor  for  it.  Since  then  wre  have  had  no  direct  problem 
of  the  colored  race.  We  wish  them  all  well.  We  wish  the 
African  Methodists  well  and  the  Zionites  well.  We  wish  your 
members  well,  but  we  do  not  want  to  tell  you  what  to  do  with 
the  colored  men.  I  have  no  disposition  at  all  to  tell  you  what 
to  do,  but  I  will  tell  you  what  I  do  want.  I  want  you  to  tell 
us  what  you  want  about  it  in  black  and  white,  in  black  es- 
pecially, and  let  there  be  no  mistake  about  it.  Don't  let  it  be 
said  through  the  Church  that  any  act  we  take  was  taken  by 
ourselves — by  the  members  of  our  Commission  and  in  the  face 
of  your  wishes.  You  know  what  is  the  best  thing.  If  you 
have  conscientious  convictions,  you  ought  not  allow  any  one 
to  override  them — I  think  every  man  ought  to  die  before  he 
allows  his  convictions  to  be  overriden — but  tell  us  what  you 
want  and  we  will  try  to  tell  you  whether  we  want  the  same 
thing  or  not.  It  is  not  certain  that  you  do.  We  think  we  know 
something  about  the  colored  men.  We  don't  know  as  much 
as  some  of  your  people  do.  We  haven't  had  as  much  to  do 
with  the  leaders  of  the  race,  the  reason  is,  as  our  fathers  had. 
1  doubt  whether  there  is  any  colored  man  who  understood  the 
colored  people  as  William  Capers  understood  them,  a  man 
worthy  to  be  held  in  everlasting  remembrance.  There  was 
one  thing  that  made  Capers  eminently  qualified  to  be  a  leader 
of  the  colored  people  and  an  evangelist.  Capers  was  so  re- 
spectable that  he  could  go  anywhere  he  wanted  to  go  and  do 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


201 


anything  he  wanted  without  being  called  in  question.  Nobody 
thought  of  calling  in  question  William  Capers  because  he  in- 
vited colored  preachers  to  his  house  and  gave  them  instructions 
and  fatherly  guidance.  I  believe  God  Almighty  has  drawn  the 
color  line  in  indelible  ink,  and  I  am  inclined  to  respect  it  and 
never  except  with  great  respect — I  never  have  for  one  day  in 
my  life  believed  that  I  had  any  right  to  treat  otherwise  than 
with  great  respect  all  races  and  classes  of  men,  but  I  have  my 
notions  as  to  what  is  going  to  be  the  best  for  the  colored 
people  in  the  future.  I  have  it  just  as  you  have  yours,  and 
I  don't  object  to  you  holding  your  convictions.  That  is  the 
right  thing  to  do,  and  I  want  you  to  respect  mine,  and  if  you 
do  not  I  will  insist  on  holding  them  all  the  same.  I  am  not 
going  to  surrender  my  convictions  to  you  any  more  than  I 
shall  ask  you  to  surrender  yours  to  me,  and  I  don't  want  you 
to  say  that  because  I  cannot  agree  with  you  I  am  lacking  in 
Christian  character  or  Christian  spirit.  But  I  would  be  glad 
if  you  as  Commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
would  tell  us  exactly  what  you  want,  and  then  we  will  under- 
stand you  and  our  people  will  understand  you  and  you  will 
get  a  prompt  answer  from  the  Southern  Methodists  as  to 
whether  they  will  accept  it.  They  will  not  dillydally.  They 
will  say  yea  or  nay  and  say  it  promptly  and  definitely  and 
clearly,  and  I  trust  in  God  that  such  a  consummation  may  be 
brought  to  pass  as  will  be  for  the  glory  of  God  and  for  the 
good  of  all  his  people.  I  resent  as  much  as  a  man  of  my 
temper  can  resent  any  suggestion  that  I  am  maintaining  an 
unchristian  attitude  toward  the  colored  people.  It  is  because 
I  have  my  convictions  of  what  is  best  for  them.  I  thank  you 
very  much  for  this  opportunity  to  speak  and  for  listening  to 
me  in  spite  of  my  disability.  It  is  my  tongue  that  is  disabled. 
I  do  not  admit  any  failure  in  the  working  of  my  mental  ma- 
chinery. It  is  still  at  work.  I  know  what  I  am  talking  about. 
I  am  glad  to  have  been  with  you.  It  has  been  one  of  the 
great  joys  of  my  life  that  for  twenty-five  years  I  have  been 
associated  in  this  Commission  on  Federation  or  Union  with 
so  many  good  men  who  I  know  are  in  heaven.  Bishop  Pierce 
has  gone,  Bishop  Marvin  has  gone,  Bishop  Granbery  has  gone, 
Bishop  Wilson  has  gone,  and  I  am  going.  I  am  headed  that 
way,  and  I  haven't  any  doubt  that  when  I  pass  on  I  will  make 
a  safe  landing  on  the  other  side,  where  I  shall  see  every  one 
of  you.  I  have  had  so  much  of  kindness  shown  to  me  as  a 
Methodist  preacher  that  my  sense  of  obligation  is  deeper  than 
I  can  possibly  say.  I  have  never  had  anything  but  kindness 
from  the  preachers  in  my  own  Church  and  from  the  Method- 
ists in  all  other  Churches — from  the  white  Methodists  and 
from  the  colored  Methodists.    I  have  known  them  since  I  was 


202    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

a  little  boy.  The  first  colored  Methodist  I  remember  was  old 
Uncle  Horner,  who  had  a  colored  Church  in  the  town  in  which 
I  was  born  and  brought  up.  I  am  profoundly  thankful  to  you 
all,  and  if  I  get  to  heaven  first  I  will  be  on  the  lookout  for 
you,  and  if  you  get  there  before  I  do  lookout  for  me,  for  I  am 
coming  too. 

Bishop  McDowell :  When  we  were  together  at  Savannah  we 
had  a  pretty  ample  discussion  of  this  very  great  subject.  We 
adjourned  without  having  reached  an  agreement  upon  two  or 
three  propositions  before  us.  I  understand  that  in  a  parlia- 
mentary way  there  is  now  before  us:  I.  The  report  of  the 
Committee  of  Eight.  2.  The  proposition  as  by  myself  submit- 
ted in  Savannah.  3.  The  proposition  submitted  this  morning 
by  Dr.  Penn.  If  there  is  no  argument  with  reference  to  the 
proposition  submitted  by  me  in  Savannah,  I  wish  to  have  it 
understood  that  that  is  still  before  the  body. 

Charles  A.  Pollock :  Is  that  the  one  on  page  56  of  the  min- 
utes? 

Bishop  McDowell :  It  is  there. 

John  M.  Moore :  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  that  proposition  is 
not  any  longer  yours,  but  your  Commission's? 

Bishop  McDowell :  In  a  parliamentary  sense  it  was  on  my 
motion,  but  it  was  submitted  to  our  Commission  and  approved 
by  our  Commission ;  but  in  a  parliamentary  sense  it  is  before 
you  on  my  motion. 

John  M.  Moore :  With  the  approval  of  the  Commission. 

Bishop  McDowell :  Yes.  I  am  a  good  deal  in  the  position 
of  Bishop  Hoss  in  one  respect.  He  speaks  slowly  because  of 
his  infirmity,  which  we  all  deplore  in  him  and  for  him.  I 
speak  slowly  from  force  of  habit,  partially  because  I  think 
slowly.  We  have  published  to  both  of  our  Churches  tentative 
suggestions  that  have  been  reached  and  proposed  without  hav- 
ing been  reached  in  the  previous  meetings  held  at  Baltimore, 
Traverse  City,  and  Savannah.  Unquestionably  we  have  heard 
from  our  constituency  and  unquestionably  also  we  have  heard 
a  good  many  judgments  from  those  constituencies.  Some  of 
these  judgments  have  approved  and  some  have  partly  disap- 
proved and  some  have  pretty  largely  disapproved  of  the  tenta- 
tive matter  that  we  laid  out.  Among  the  subjects  on  which 
there  has  been  a  real  expression  in  my  own  province  has  been 
the  expression  of  the  Washington  Conference,  of  which  I  am 
President  at  this  time,  as  contained  in  the  telegram  I  read  to 
you  a  moment  ago,  which  telegram  represented  the  Washing- 
ton Preachers'  Meeting.  The  Washington  Conference  had 
taken  much  more  elaborate  action  than  that.  Now,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, if  I  may  express  the  opinion  that  has  come  to  me,  I 
would  say  this,  that  there  is  nothing  like  unanimous  approval 


St>  Louis  Meeting 


203 


of  the  powers  that  we  propose  for  the  Regional  Conferences. 
There  is,  on  the  other  hand,  a  good  deal  of  opposition  to  them. 
There  is  nothing  like  unanimous  approval  of  the  geographical 
boundaries  that  we  propose.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a 
good  deal  of  opposition.  There  is  nothing  like  unanimous 
approval  of  the  plans  proposed  for  the  government  of  our 
missionary  field.  Indeed,  just  at  this  minute,  I  think  I  am  quite 
as  sensitive  about  the  attitude  of  those  who  represent  our  for- 
eign missionary  interests  as  I  am  about  any  other  particular 
subject.  There  is  nothing  like  unanimous  approval  touching 
the  plan  that  was  proposed  for  our  negro  brethren.  There 
is  a  good  deal  of  favor  for  every  one  of  the  propositions  that 
we  have  tentatively  suggested.  A  very  large  number  of  the 
people  in  our  Church  would  be  glad  to  have  unification  upon 
those  terms,  provided  those  terms  would  secure  unification.  1 
am  anxious  to  state  the  case  as  it  seems  to  me  from  the  re- 
ports that  have  come  to  me.  I  do  not  pretend  to  represent 
reports  that  have  come  to  other  members  of  the  Commission 
which  may  differ  from  those  I  represent.  In  the  light  of  the 
expressions  that  have  been  made  to  me  I  feel  that  I  ought  to 
say  to  you  frankly  what  my  personal  preference  would  be  this 
afternoon,  and  I  would  be  glad  if  this  convention  would  see 
its  way  to  adopt  and  send  to  the  Churches.  We  do  not  get 
anywhere  except  by  perfect  frankness.  I  would  be  glad  to 
have  a  change  made  first  in  the  number  of  the  proposed  Re- 
gional Conferences  in  the  United  States — not  necessarily  to 
make  eight,  as  I  proposed  yesterday,  but  to  let  the  six  stand 
that  you  proposed  yesterday  and  add  a  seventh  in  harmony 
with  the  suggestion  of  the  Chattanooga  Declaration  and  of  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to 
create  a  negro  Regional  Conference.  That  would  require 
another  change — namely,  a  change  in  the  numerical  size  of  the 
Regional  Conferences.  But  I  do  not  see  the  necessity  for 
having  a  Regional  Conference  of  100  persons  except  with  ref- 
erence to  those  Regional  Conferences  that  do  certain  things 
in  certain  ways.  I  would  be  glad — and  for  this  I  shall  vote — 
if  we  should  begin  our  united  relations  granting  to  our  colored 
brethren  of  America  and  to  our  Missionary  Jurisdiction  pro- 
portionate representation  based  upon  their  present  membership. 
For  that  I  would  vote.  That  would  mean  that  five  per  cent 
of  the  body  in  round  numbers  would  be  made  from  our  negro 
membership  in  America.  Dr.  Penn's  figures  this  morning  show 
some  43  or  44  negro  members  who  would  be  in  a  General 
Conference  of  about  850.  They  constitute  about  five  per  cent 
of  the  united  membership.  The  same  proportion  applied 
to  our  foreign  mission  field  would  slightly  reduce  the  repre- 
sentation of  one  or  two  of  those  fields,  but  would  not  greatly 


204    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

increase  the  representation  proposed  in  my  suggestion  at 
Savannah.  I  would  be  glad  to  have  the  foreign  mission  field 
organized  into  Central  Conferences  with  proportionate  repre- 
sentation, but  the  Regional  Conferences  at  home  organized  on 
racial  lines  and  the  Central  Conference  Board  organized  on 
missionary  or  language  or  geographical  lines  with  the  distinct 
proviso  that  when  their  representation  in  the  General  Confer- 
ence reaches  five  per  cent  of  that  body,  without  any  breach  of 
faith  or  violation  of  rights,  the  General  Conference  could  de- 
termine whether  there  should  be  a  further  increase  in  their 
representation.  There  is  much  to  be  said  in  favor  of  the  po- 
sition, that  has  been  stated  over  and  over  again,  that  we  can- 
not contemplate  an  indefinite  increase  in  representation  from 
foreign  fields.  Financial  and  other  considerations  all  lend  them- 
selves to  that  principle.  I  am  thoroughly  convinced  in  my  own 
mind — and  now  I  am  speaking  for  myself  and  not  at  all  for  the 
Commission  to  which  I  belong — that  the  United  Church  could 
stand  five  per  cent  of  its  membership  easily  from  the  negro 
membership,  could  stand  five  per  cent  from  the  Latin-Ameri- 
can, could  stand  five  per  cent  from  the  other  regions  desig- 
nated as  Central  Conferences,  even  though  the  aggregate  might 
reach  twenty-five  per  cent,  for  we  are  looking  just  now  in  a 
peculiar  way  to  that  great  missionary  development  in  that 
tremendous  world  of  other  nations  than  our  own  that  consti- 
tute the  strength  of  our  appeal  for  $40,000,000  for  foreign 
missions,  and  that  constitutes  the  strength  of  our  foreign  in- 
fluence as  establishing  Christianity  as  the  religion  of  the  world. 
Now  I  have  stated  right  frankly  what  is  my  own  earnest  wish 
that  we  should  do.  I  do  not  think  that  Bishop  Hoss  or  any 
one  else  is  wholly  right  in  saying  that  this  negro  problem  is  a 
problem  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

Bishop  Hoss :  I  said  that  you  have  them  on  your  hands, 
which  we  have  not. 

Bishop  McDowell:  In  these  negotiations  it  is  a  problem  with 
us  quite  largely  because  of  your  attitude  toward  the  negro,  and 
also,  for  another  reason,  because  of  our  desire  to  reach  a  basis 
that  will  be  acceptable  to  our  Church  and  possibly  accept- 
able to  yours ;  but  we  have  struggled  and  are  struggling — 
God  help  us! — toward  an  amicable  and  wise  adjustment 
for  the  greater  efficiency  of  the  Church  we  both  love  and 
whose  welfare  and  power  we  all  desire.  Now  I  do  not  think  I 
will  offer  as  an  amendment  the  substance  of  what  I  have  said, 
but  if  any  Commissioner  wishes  to  offer  it  as  an  amendment 
I  would  be  glad.  I  recognize  the  delicacy  of  offering  this  as  an 
amendment,  but  in  a  parliamentary  way  the  suggestion  of  mine 
is  already  before  the  body.  I  do  not  mind  saying  again  that 
the  things  I  have  heard  said  and  things  that  have  been  said  to 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


205 


me,  both  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  colored  membership  and 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  foreign  missionary  people,  have 
led  me  to  reexamine  my  own  position  so  that  I  would  be  sure 
not  only  that  I  would  be  right,  but  in  harmony  with  those 
forces  whose  good  will  is  necessary  if  we  are  to  get  this  prop- 
osition of  ours  through.  I  believe  you  want  a  plan  that  we 
can  get  through  the  Church.  I  do  not  want  in  our  Church  to 
have  the  plan  we  submit  immediately  made  the  subject  of  at- 
tacks by  both  the  negro  and  foreign  mission  field.  I  know 
perfectly  well  what  you  have  to  get  through  your  Church.  I 
repeat  what  I  said  at  Savannah.  It  may  be  that  with  an  equal 
obedience  to  Jesus  Christ  as  each  interprets  that  obedience  (and 
each  Commission  must  interpret  it  for  itself),  we  are  not  to 
reflect  upon  one  another  in  these  matters — I  am  sure  you  will 
agree  with  that.  It  may  be  that  there  is  no  provision  in  these 
matters  that  we  can  accept  that  you  will  find  is  possible  to 
get  through  this  Commission  or  through  your  Church.  It  may 
be  that  there  is  no  provision  that  you  could  accept  that  we 
could  get  through  this  Commission  or  through  our  Church — 
but  just  as  sure  as  anything  in  this  world  there  never  was  a 
body  that  met  three  times,  as  this  body  has  met  prior  to  this 
meeting,  that  has  accomplished  more  than  has  been  accom- 
plished by  this  body.  It  may  be  that  the  concrete  results  will 
not  be  immediate;  but  just  as  sure  as  you  live,  brethren,  we 
have  not  wasted  our  time  at  Baltimore,  and  we  have  not  wasted 
our  time  at  Traverse  City,  and  we  have  not  wasted  our  time 
at  Savannah,  and  we  are  not  going  to  suffer  ourselves  to  apply 
self-reproach  or  to  suffer  ourselves  to  be  reproached  by  any- 
body else  because  of  what  we  have  done  or  failed  to  do.  These 
Churches  could  never  be  gotten  together  if  we  had  not  gone 
up  this  alley  and  up  that  street  and  crossed  this  field  and  ex- 
plored these  subjects  as  we  have  explored  them.  Some  day 
somebody  will  find  a  plan,  but  he  will  find  it  a  thousand  times 
more  easy  because  of  what  we  have  in  God's  name  done;  and 
whatever  we  do  or  do  not  do  now  must  not  strain  our  relations 
one  with  the  other  nor  strain  the  relations  of  the  Churches  in 
such  way  as  either  to  give  or  to  seek  advantage  on  either  side 
of  this  thin  line  that  separates  us,  if  we  are  to  go  forward. 
It  may  not  be  in  one  year  and  it  may  not  be  in  two  years  and 
it  may  not  be  in  five  or  ten  years,  but  we  are  going  steadily  for- 
ward in  God's  name  until  these  Churches  are  won.  I  thank 
you,  Mr.  Chairman  and  dear  brethren,  for  listening  to  my  re- 
marks and  granting  the  extension  of  time  which  you  have  done. 

Frank  M.  Thomas :  I  trust  the  Commission  will  indulge  me 
while  I  present  my  views  on  this  matter.  It  will  take  seven 
minutes  and  I  would  like  to  have  my  time  extended  in  the  be- 
ginning, so  that  I  can  finish  my  remarks  without  interruption. 


2o6    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

On  vote,  and  on  motion,  the  time  was  extended. 

Frank  M.  Thomas :  The  other  day  in  looking  over  my  rather 
extensive  library  on  moral  philosophy  the  thought  occurred 
to  me  that,  as  I  had  just  been  reading  your  proof  and  your 
speeches  and  had  refreshed  my  mind  as  to  various  viewpoints 
set  forth  by  brethren  of  both  North  and  South,  it  might  be  wise 
for  my  own  mental  satisfaction  to  jot  down  my  own  views  on 
the  matter.  I  do  not  claim  to  represent  my  Commission  or  my 
own  Church  in  this  matter.  I  am  putting  this  down  as  my  de- 
liberate conviction  on  these  matters  after  nearly  ten  years  in 
service  on  this  Commission  or  on  Commissions  leading  up  to 
this.  You  brethren  will  bear  witness  that  I  have  not  spoken  at 
length  during  the  discussion  in  this  Commission.  I  have  been 
anxious  to  hear  other  men.  I  have  wanted  to  get  all  the  facts 
before  making  up  my  own  mind.  I  feel  that  the  time  has  come 
when  I  ought  to  express  matured  views  on  the  problem  before 
us.  I  owe  it  as  a  duty,  since  Bishop  Cranston  and  myself  are 
the  only  two  men  here  who  have  been  present  at  all  the  most 
important  meetings  of  the  Joint  Commission  since  1908.  I 
may  add,  by  way  of  a  preface  to  my  remarks,  that  the 
question  which  is  now  before  us  was  not  then  regarded  as  the 
most  serious  obstacle  in  the  way  of  reunion.  There  were  other 
profound  problems  of  ecclesiastical  polity,  which,  by  long  atten- 
tion to  them  and  the  help  of  our  risen  Lord,  we  have  been  en- 
abled to  solve,  at  least  in  a  tentative  way.  But  this  grave  prob- 
lem now  before  us  was  ever  hovering  in  the  background.  More 
than  once  it  has  been  brought  forward,  and  we  of  the  Southern 
Church  have  not  been  quick  to  discuss  it,  because  we  have  felt 
that  there  needed  to  be  an  orientation  to  this  problem  before  it 
could  wisely  become  a  matter  of  discussion  by  the  Joint  Com- 
mission. Even  now,  there  is  some  doubt  in  my  own  mind  as 
to  whether  this  orientation  has  proceeded  sufficiently  far  for  the 
majority  of  us  to  approach  this  problem  without  bias.  Yet  face 
it  we  must.  Each  man  must  do  the  best  he  can  with  the  light 
before  him,  and  trust  the  Father  of  Light  to  forgive  whatever 
of  ignorance  and  error  may  distort  his  vision.  This  speaker 
would  in  no  wise  claim  any  infallibility  for  his  utterances. 
Ever  mindful  of  his  own  limitations,  as  he  grows  older  and  the 
complexity  of  human  existence  is  more  and  more  borne  in  upon 
him,  he  feels  like 

An  infant  crying  in  the  night, 
An  infant  crying  for  the  light, 
With  no  language  but  a  cry. 

Yet,  as  a  long  time  student  of  logical  classification,  he  is  not 
unmindful  of  the  fact  that  the  problem  now  before  us  is  a 
many-sided  one.  It  is,  first  of  all,  a  problem  in  anthropology, 
since  there  are  three  distinct  races  of  mankind — the  Negroid, 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


207 


the  Mongolian,  and  the  Caucasian.  It  is,  secondly,  a  moral 
problem,  since  it  involves  the  question  of  right  relations  between 
two  distinct  races,  separated  by  centuries  of  development. 
Thirdly,  it  is  an  ecclesiastical  problem,  as  it  involves  the  de- 
termination of  the  status  of  not  only  the  colored  race,  but  other 
races,  in  a  Church  which  two  General  Conferences  have  di- 
rected should  be  constructed  if  such  construction  be  at  all  pos- 
sible. Speaking  for  myself  alone,  I  do  not  see  how  I  could 
honorably  discharge  the  duty  laid  upon  me  unless  I  had  as 
far  as  is  possible  exhausted  every  wise  solution  before  report- 
ing back  to  the  General  Conference,  which  commissioned  mc, 
the  impossibility  of  this  task.  The  larger  and  more  imperative 
question  of  our  duty  to  the  million  and  a  half  negro  Methodists 
in  other  Churches  I  do  not  consider  now.  I  come  now  direct 
to  the  problem  before  us.  One  of  the  difficulties  connected 
with  this  problem  has  been  a  fallacy,  which  I  find  quite  preva- 
lent in  several  of  the  speeches  that  have  been  made.  As  1  have 
read  these  speeches  in  the  cold  type  of  the  proof  I  have  won- 
dered how  men  as  good  and  as  thoughtful  as  I  know  these 
speakers  to  be  could  have  fallen  into  such  a  fallacy  of  thought. 
The  error,  briefly  stated,  is  the  belief  that  the  problem  before 
us  is  one  that  can  be  solved  by  the  plain  teachings  of  the  New 
Testament.  Such  a  conception  of  the  New  Testament  will 
not  stand  searching  inquiry.  That  divine  revelation  of  the  Son 
of  God  deals  only  with  general  principles.  It  does  not  enter 
into  the  details  of  human  life.  It  would  be  manifestly  im- 
possible for  a  religion,  especially  the  one  true  religion,  to  set 
out  to  cover  the  changing  phenomena  of  human  life.  It  would 
then  become  a  code-book,  and  in  time  become  obsolete.  The 
Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Light  of  the  Eternal  World  shin- 
ing into  this  complex  and  changing  world  of  time.  The  great- 
est problem  in  philosophy,  as  well  as  in  theology,  is  the  relation 
of  that  Eternal  Order  to  the  present  world  order.  Certain 
great  principles — the  Fatherhood  of  God,  the  Sonship  of  Jesus 
Christ,  His  Universal  Atonement,  the  Gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
the  Brotherhood  of  Believers — are  set  forth.  From  these 
living  principles  we  must  draw  our  conclusions  and  build  our 
motives  for  right  action  in  the  complex  situations  in  which  life 
thrusts  us.  To  do  this  is  no  easy  matter,  because  human  life 
is  far  more  complex  than  the  average  man  imagines.  In  one 
of  our  sessions  an  eminent  Commissioner  declared  that  the  task 
before  us  was  a  simple  one,  simply  the  application  of  the  New 
Testament  to  the  problem.  I  found  myself  wondering  whether 
in  the  many  difficult  cases  he  has  been  called  on  to  plead  that 
a  simple  appeal  to  Blackstone  ever  won  a  case  before  any 
judge  learned  in  the  law.  Why  the  marshaling  of  authorities 
and  elaborate  arguments  if  the  case  be  so  simple?    Now,  the 


208    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

problem  before  us  is  more  complicated — yea,  we  dare  affirm 
that  it  has  more  perplexing  factors  than  any  other  human  prob- 
lem. In  fact,  it  is  the  greatest  problem  ever  laid  upon  the  mind 
and  conscience  of  Christian  men.  There  are  aspects  of  it  which 
are  exceedingly  simple.  If  any  brother  says  that  our  "brother 
in  black"  and  our  brother  in  every  other  race  is  a  full  brother 
in  the  kingdom  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  and  is 
entitled  to  all  the  privileges  and  rights  growing  out  of  this 
sonship  with  God  and  heirship  with  Jesus  Christ,  there  is  no 
one  who  has  known  Jesus  Christ  who  will  not  say  a  hearty 
Amen  to  such  a  declaration,  and  truly  rejoice  therein.  But  to 
say  this  is  to  say  a  very  different  thing  from  saying  that  in  the 
organization  and  administration  of  the  polity  of  the  Church  a 
man's  privileges  and  rights  are  fixed  by  his  spiritual  relation 
to  Jesus  Christ  and  his  fraternal  relations  with  his  brethren. 
This  is  to  make  a  claim  that  will  not  stand,  at  least  in  Method- 
ism, the  acid  test  of  the  facts.  A  man's  spiritual  relations  do 
not  determine  his  ecclesiastical  relations.  There  are  thousands 
of  preachers  in  American  Methodism,  men  free-born  with  the 
blood  of  patriots  in  their  veins,  who  each  year  have  place  of 
living,  their  income,  fixed  by  the  appointing  power.  Were  it  not 
for  the  high  spiritual  values  involved,  it  would  be  difficult  to 
find  a  more  pronounced  form  of  human  slavery.  Those  who 
speak  of  the  question  before  us  as  being  determined  by  the  prin- 
ciples of  democracy,  and  especially  the  application  of  "manhood 
suffrage,"  lose  sight  of,  it  seems  to  me,  the  very  foundation 
principles  of  our  Methodism,  which  is  self-surrender  for  the 
kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  question  then  arises,  Have  we 
any  norm  for  determining  what  the  ecclesiastical  status  of  vari- 
ous races  should  be  in  a  reorganized  Church  ?  We  think  we 
have.  It  is  clear  that  this  ecclesiastical  status,  so  far  as  mem- 
bership is  concerned,  should  be  one  and  the  same  everywhere, 
that  laid  down  in  the  plain  teachings  of  the  New  Testament 
with  reference  to  membership  in  the  kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ. 
But.  when  we  come  to  participation  in  the  government  of  the 
reorganized  Church,  then  we  must  fix  such  status  on  the  basis 
of  mental  and  moral  responsibility.  I  was  born  an  American 
citizen,  yet  I  had  to  wait  twenty-one  years  before  I  was  granted 
the  privilege  of  exercising  manhood  suffrage.  Why?  Because, 
in  the  conception  of  the  world's  greatest  democracy,  I  had  not 
arrived  at  that  status  of  mental  energy  which  would  fit  me  to 
become  an  active  factor  in  the  State.  This  is  the  reason  why 
certain  of  our  Southern  States  have  deprived  certain  of  their 
citizens  of  the  right  of  suffrage.  They  have  not  yet  arrived 
at  that  state  of  mental  energy  which  fits  them  to  become  mold- 
ers  of  democracy.  When  Lincoln  issued  his  immortal  Eman- 
cipation Proclamation,  freeing  the  slaves,  he  declared  that  the 


St.  Louis  Meeting  209 

right  of  suffrage  should  be  conferred  only  on  those  who  were 
competent.  And  it  is  impossible  to  escape  the  inexorable  logic 
of  such  a  position.  So  that  in  fixing  a  missionary  status  for  the 
negro  and  other  races  in  the  reorganized  Church  we  not  only 
do  not  do  him  an  injustice,  we  do  justice  both  to  him  and  to 
others  constituting  the  Church.  We  believe  such  a  position  to 
be  absolutely  unassailable  from  the  standpoint  of  Christian 
ethics.  If  it  be  answered  that  in  so  doing  you  deprive  him  of 
rights  which  he  to-day  possesses,  the  answer  comes  back  clear 
as  the  music  of  morning  bells,  that  you  do  not  deprive  a  man  of 
any  right  when  in  a  corporate  reorganization  you  give  him  his 
true  status.  After  all,  rights  are  the  results  of  activities.  They 
are  acquired,  not  given.  You  may,  by  legal  enactment,  con- 
fer privileges,  but  rights  must  be  won  by  the  exercise  of  mental 
and  moral  energy.  Why  is  the  negro  to-day  within  the  Church 
denied  the  logical  fulfillment  of  the  rights  he  is  supposed  to 
have?  Simply  because  it  is  recognized  that  to  do  so  would  be 
to  do  an  injustice  to  the  white  membership.  There  is  not  a 
white  Conference  in  American  Methodism  which  at  the  present 
time  would  accept  the  presidency  of  a  colored  bishop.  On  the 
ground  of  color?  Or  race  prejudice?  We  hardly  think  so. 
But  because  it  would  be  to  shift  long  centuries  of  mental  and 
moral  energy  development.  We  may  theorize  as  we  wish,  but 
when  confronted  with  the  stubborn  facts  of  human  energy 
our  theories  go  to  pieces  unless  they  are  in  line  with  facts  as 
they  are.  Now,  I  deeply  sympathize  with  my  brother  in  black. 
I  think  I  feel  for  him.  I  have  felt  for  him  through  all  these 
discussions.  One  reason  why  I  have  refrained  from  speaking 
is  that  I  did  not  wish  in  any  wise  to  wound  him.  But  to  refrain 
from  stating  the  truth  as  one  sees  it  because  one  does  not  wish 
to  wound  a  soul  may  be  opening  a  greater  wound  in  the  heart 
of  humanity.  Personally  I  am  in  favor  of  granting  to  my 
"brother  in  black"  and  to  every  man  the  privilege  and  the  right 
to  enter  into  the  largest  inheritance  possible;  yea,  it  is  estab- 
lishing justice  to  see  to  it  that  he  qualifies  for  those  privileges 
which  have  cost  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  centuries  of  struggle. 
If  I  could,  by  a  gift,  endow  him  with  the  racial  energies  of 
the  Anglo-Saxon,  I  would  do  so;  but  this  is  impossible.  I  can 
only  help  place  him  in  a  path  where,  by  long  and  unending 
struggle,  he  shall  arrive  sooner  or  later.  That  some  few  are 
approaching  a  high  standard  of  synthetic  energy  we  are  glad 
to  affirm,  but  you  cannot  legislate  for  the  individual  in  mass 
representation.  Where  shall  he  be  placed,  then,  in  the  re- 
organized Church?  Very  evidently  and  justly  in  a  jurisdic- 
tion which,  whatever  we  may  call  it,  is  a  missionary  jurisdiction. 
Such  a  jurisdiction  should  have  a  limited  representation  in  the 
General  Conference.  The  limitation  is  purely  on  the  ground 
14 


210    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

of  moral  justice.  The  exact  number  is  immaterial.  How  long 
should  this  representation  continue?  It  has  been  suggested 
until  the  number  in  this  jurisdiction  reaches  600,000.  Such  a 
suggestion  is  just.  No  injustice  of  any  kind  can  be  alleged 
against  it.  The  only  question  is  whether  on  reaching  such  a 
number  said  jurisdiction  should  automatically  become  a  Cen- 
tral General  Conference  or  some  margin  of  time  left  to  be  de- 
cided by  the  General  Conference.  Personally  I  cannot  vote 
for  leaving  the  matter  optional  with  the  General  Conference,  for 
the  following  reasons :  A  large  section  of  every  General  Con- 
ference that  would  be  held  for  the  next  few  years  could  not  be 
oriented  to  this  great  problem.  It  will  be  dominated  by  ideas 
imported  from  the  democratic  drift  into  the  life  of  the  Church. 
It  will  not  be  in  direct  touch  with  the  mass  problem.  There 
would  be  grave  danger  of  a  serious  division  in  such  a  General 
Conference.  This  is  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  intelligent  men 
in  this  Commission,  supposed  to  be  the  picked  men  of  their 
Church,  have  put  forward  the  plain  text  of  the  New  Testament 
as  determining  the  full  ecclesiastical  policy  of  the  Church  in 
reference  to  this  question.  Until  we  arrive  at  the  only  sound 
position,  that  it  is  a  problem  to  be  settled  by  the  principles  of  the 
New  Testament  in  the  light  of  the  complete  facts  of  human  life, 
there  would  always  be  danger  of  a  grave  rupture  in  a  General 
Conference.  Things  have  been  said  here  in  this  quiet  body 
which,  if  said  in  a  General  Conference,  would  have  provoked  a 
storm.  Would  it  be  wise  then  to  leave  to  some  future  General 
Conference  the  determination  of  such  a  grave  problem?  We 
think  not.  Are  we  estopped  then  from  any  solution?  Must 
the  forces  which  make  for  disunion  and  separation  defeat  the 
great  longing  in  both  Churches,  the  imperative  demand  of  the 
times,  the  logic  of  Christian  energy  for  the  unification  of  Amer- 
ican Methodism?  Shall  we  part  after  all  these  years  and  go 
back  to  our  General  Conferences  to  "let  loose  the  dogs  of  war"? 
In  an  age  when  Satan  seemed  loosed  and  the  very  powers  of 
darkness  are  gloating  and  shouting  over  all  the  blood  and  hor- 
ror that  enwrap  mankind,  shall  we  announce  our  failure  to  men 
and  angels?  Not  until  we  have  tried  every  possible  solution 
and  exhausted  all  our  mental  and  moral  energies  in  the  effort 
to  solve  a  problem,  the  solving  of  which  would  cause  Satan  to 
tremble  on  his  throne,  as  he  thinks  of  the  possibility  of  the 
mobilization  of  the  vast  resources  of  American  Methodism 
against  his  kingdom.  There  is  nearly  always  a  way  out — a  way 
out  of  Egypt,  even  by  fire  and  flood,  if  God  is  determined  to  lead 
us  out  into  a  larger  place.  There  is  one  solution  which  has  not 
been  tried.  It  would  be  perfectly  just  to  leave  the  determina- 
tion of  the  exact  time  of  the  setting  up  of  an  Associate  Gen- 
eral Conference  to  the  judgment  of  a  picked  body  of  men, 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


211 


either  the  Judicial  Council  or  a  Council  yet  to  be  created  to 
be  known  as  the  Federal  Council  of  Methodism.  We  once  had 
such  a  council  for  determining  all  cases  of  conflict  between  the 
two  Methodisms.  True,  it  never  functioned.  But  as  crowning 
the  plan  of  unification  now  under  consideration,  it  could  be 
made  to  function.  As  the  late  Professor  Bowne  once  pointed 
out,  you  must  in  human  society  have  somewhere  a  small  body 
of  picked  men,  a  final  court  that  has  power  to  end  dispute,  or 
human  society  would  be  impossible.  The  future  League  of 
Nations  must  have  some  such  tribunal.  Unified  Methodism 
ought  to  have  some  such  tribunal  or  council.  I  believe  that  the 
majority  of  our  members,  North  and  South,  would  come  in  time 
to  trust  such  a  tribunal,  if  wisely  and  properly  constituted. 
Many  in  Southern  Methodism  are  not  concerned  as  to  the 
exact  hour  when  the  colored  membership  or  other  missionary 
jurisdiction  shall  become  a  Central  General  Conference  juris- 
diction. We  are  deeply  concerned  as  to  the  justice  and  equities 
involved.  We  wish  to  see  these  missionary  jurisdictions  reach 
their  highest,  but  it  is  also  our  duty  to  see  that  the  rights  of 
the  Regional  Conferences  are  maintained  and  not  lowered.  I 
may  add  that  there  was  a  time  when  the  possibility  of  the 
colored  membership  remaining  a  full  Regional  Conference  was 
considered  by  the  Commission  on  Federation.  It  was  not  dis- 
cussed at  length,  but  it  was  suggested.  It  was  in  the  original 
series  of  suggestions  when  the  concept  of  the  reorganized 
Church  was  somewhat  different  from  that  now  before  us.  I 
wish  to  say  very  frankly  that  I  have  kept  an  open  mind  on 
this  one  question.  I  have  been  seeking  light  continually.  And 
I  have  been  led  to  my  conclusion  that  it  is  best  for  him  to  be 
in  a  separate  Associate  General  Conference  by  the  facts  that 
have  been  adduced  here  by  members  of  the  Commission  from 
the  M.  E.  Church.  It  is  evident,  despite  a  real  and  genuine 
brotherly  interest,  that  when  it  comes  to  the  carrying  out  of  the 
"manhood  suffrage"  idea  the  colored  membership  fails  to  reach 
its  logical  goal.  Will  it  ever  reach  it?  Not  so  long  as  the  pres- 
ent drift  in  the  North  is  setting  in.  It  is  a  serious  question 
whether  the  M.  E.  Church,  big  and  mighty  as  it  is,  could 
change  this  drift  were  it  to  throw  all  its  energies  against  it. 
Now,  my  brethren,  you  can  give  and  we  both  can  give  our 
colored  brethren  justice  and  brotherly  help,  but  we  cannot  give 
him  ecclesiastically  more  than  justice.  Justice  has  a  way  of 
punishing  those  who  would  remove  the  bandage  from  her  eyes 
and  substitute  glasses  that  blur  the  facts  of  life.  Not  for  one 
moment  would  I  plead  that  some  in  the  South  have  not  been 
guilty  of  injustice.  We  know  this  and  it  pains  us  to  think  of 
it.  But  the  M.  E.  Church,  South,  is  honestly  concerned  to  do 
all  that  justice  and  Christian  love  demand.   We  shall  do  it  glad- 


212    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

ly  if  it  can  be  made  plain  to  us.  It  cannot  be  made  plain  by  a 
type  of  argument  that  runs  counter  to  the  facts  of  human  en- 
ergy. It  may  do  roughly  in  some  worldly  affairs,  but  it  will 
not  hold  when  we  come  to  building  on  the  hard  rock  of  facts 
the  Church  of  the  Living  God.  I  have  indicated  a  way  in  which 
I  think  a  solution  might  be  found.  If  it  be  wise,  may  God 
give  us  grace  to  enact  it  and  build  him  a  glorious  Church,  the 
hope  and  the  wonder  of  the  world! 

Bishop  Leete :  I  arise  to  a  question  of  privilege,  for  the  whole 
house  as  it  seems  to  me.  These  expressions  of  individual 
views  are  very  important,  very  illuminating,  in  some  respects 
convincing.  It  would  require  a  great  deal  of  time  if  each  man 
here  should  give  his  individual  conclusions  about  this  whole 
matter.  I  want  to  raise  the  question  of  qui  bono.  Why  should 
each  one  of  us  give  his  individual  opinion?  We  act  not  as 
individuals,  but  as  Commissions.  Why  be  afraid  to  do  so?  Wre 
might  as  well  do  it  before  this  week  end.  Bishop  Hoss  said 
a  few  moments  ago  that  the  thing  was  for  one  Commission  or 
the  other  to  state  what  we  wanted  and  get  an  answer.  We 
will  never  get  anywhere  until  we  do  that.  It  seems  to  me  that 
the  time  has  come  when  we  should  reach  some  conclusion,  and 
we  ought  to  do  that  with  the  very  greatest  kindness  and  good 
will  one  for  the  other.  I  do  not  see  how  we  are  going  to  get 
to  any  conclusion  unless  we  have  a  separate  meeting  of  the 
Commissions.  I  believe  if  we  had  had  this  two  days  ago  we 
would  be  far  ahead  of  where  we  are  now.  What  difference 
does  it  make  what  I  think  is  the  correct  ultimate  solution?  If 
I  cannot  get  two-thirds  of  my  Commission,  my  opinion  is  of  no 
value.  I  think  we  must  come  to  the  two  Commissions  decided 
on  what  we  want  and  then  see  if  we  can  get  together.  It  seems 
to  me  the  time  has  come  for  some  one  to  call  a  separate  meet- 
ing of  the  Commissions  to  find  out  where  we  stand. 

Frank  M.  Thomas :  I  beg  Bishop  Leete's  pardon,  but  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  stated  clearly  at  Savannah 
where  it  stood,  that  it  stood  upon  the  report  of  the  Committee 
of  Eight. 

Bishop  Leete :  May  I  answer  that  in  this  respect  we  are  in 
this  particular  parliamentary  position  as  a  Commission :  We 
have  now  two  measures  from  our  Commission  and  still  a  third 
presented. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Is  the  Commission  ready 
to  vote  or  does  some  member  wish  to  speak? 

Bishop  Cooke:  I  was  deeply  interested  in  the  paper  which 
the  Secretary  gave  us.  I  was  interested  because  of  the  ethical 
views  he  had  relating  to  this  matter.  I  could  not  subscribe  to 
the  ethics  which  our  brother  has  presented  as  my  norm  of 
Christian  ethics.    That  is  the  first  thing  I  wanted  to  say.  Any 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


213 


ethical  practice  which  is  not  of  universal  application  cannot 
be  Christian  ethics.  Jesus  Christ  is  the  universal  teacher,  and 
the  principles  of  Jesus  Christ  are  of  universal  application.  Our 
confusion  comes  from  mixing  that  which  is  expedient  to  that 
which  is  lawful.  All  things  may  be  lawful,  but  all  things  are 
not  expedient.  Some  things  may  be  expedient,  but  they  are 
not  imperative;  and  that  leads  me  to  this  second  statement. 
Again  and  again  we  are  brought  face  to  face  with  the  seeming 
inconsistency  that  we  have  colored  men  in  the  Church,  but  we 
do  not  have  them  in  our  Churches  and  we  do  not  have  them 
in  our  schools  nor  allow  them  to  teach  in  our  colleges.  We  draw 
the  color  line.  And  that  has  led  up  to  an  inconsistency.  Incon- 
sistency with  what?  With  the  provisions  of  human  equality  with 
the  colored  man?  That  is  not  the  case.  There  is  absolutely  no 
inconsistency.  There  is  nothing  contrary  to  the  law  of  Christ 
in  that.  If  we  absolutely  excluded  them  from  the  lawmaking 
councils  of  the  Church,  then  there  might  come  in  a  question  of 
insincerity,  because  there  is  a  difference  between  being  gov- 
erned by  and  being  governed  with.  These  schools  are  not  gov- 
erning bodies.  Our  colleges  are  not  governing  bodies.  Our 
Annual  Conferences  are  not  legislative  bodies.  But  when  we 
come  to  the  higher  councils  of  the  Church,  to  exclude  any  one 
on  merely  technical  grounds  would  be  depriving  him  of  his 
Christian  rights  in  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ.  There  is  a 
subtle  fallacy  which  is  so  fine  and  thin  at  the  very  beginning 
of  this  whole  discussion  that  we  walk  in  a  fog  from  the  very 
start.  We  say  we  will  not  allow  this  and  we  are  not  obligated 
to  that.  Pray  tell  me  who  are  the  "we"  to  begin  with.  Why, 
you  start  in  the  very  presence  of  the  teachings  of  Christ  with 
the  assumption  that  we  are  the  "we."  That  is  an  arrogant  as- 
sumption in  the  Church  of  God.  The  "we"  in  the  Church  of 
God,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  ethics  of  Jesus  Christ,  is  the 
body  of  the  faithful;  and  no  part  of  that  body  of  the  faithful 
in  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  has  a  right  to  assume  superiority 
over  the  others. 

Bishop  Mouzon:  I  move  the  previous  question. 

The  motion  was  seconded. 

Bishop  Cranston  expressing  a  desire  to  speak,  the  motion  was 
withdrawn. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Bishop  Cranston  has  the 
floor. 

Bishop  McDowell :  A  question  of  privilege. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  State  it. 

Bishop  McDowell :  This  morning  Dr.  Bishop  expressed  a 
wish  that  the  members  of  the  Southern  Commission  might  have 
a  chance  to  have  a  meeting,  and  I  hope  that  wish  may  be 
granted. 


214    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  That  is  hardly  a  question  of 
privilege.    Bishop  Cranston  has  the  floor. 

Bishop  Cranston :  The  thought  has  been  expressed  by  Bishop 
Leete  that  if  we  had  had  a  meeting  of  the  separate  Com- 
missions three  days  ago  we  would  be  farther  along  than  we  are 
now.  Later  the  Bishop  observed  that  it  was  not  his  place  to 
call  such  a  meeting.  The  Chairman  of  the  Commission  could 
hardly  have  called  a  meeting  three  days  ago,  for  he  was  not 
here,  and  the  number  required  by  the  rules  to  request  such  a 
call  has  not  made  any  expression  of  such  a  desire.  Brethren, 
we  have  reached  the  point  where  there  is  a  manifest  impa- 
tience at  the  expression  of  individual  opinion,  yet  there  is  no 
other  kind  of  opinion  that  any  man  is  legitimately  authorized 
to  express.  I  wish  to  call  attention,  in  the  first  place,  to  the 
fact  that  the  task  to  which  we  are  appointed  by  our  General 
Conferences  is  not  a  task  of  making  effective  in  the  action  of 
the  Joint  Commission  the  personal  opinions  of  any  man  of  us.  In 
the  second  place,  that  task  is  not  the  enforcing  of  the  pref- 
erential recommendation  made  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  or  the  preferential  recommendation  made  by 
the  General  Conference  of  our  Church  at  Saratoga.  That  is 
not  our  task.  Every  action  of  both  General  Conferences  recog- 
nizes that  there  are  differences  which  are  to  be  adjusted.  It 
will  not  be  denied  that  the  General  Conferences  also  contem- 
plated that  those  differences  involve  matters  of  conscientious 
judgment.  Both  General  Conferences  evidently  realize  that  it 
would  be  impossible  for  the  two  Churches  ever  to  be  reorgan- 
ized except  by  agreement,  and  that  agreement  would  be  im- 
possible without  adjustment  involving  mutual  concessions. 
There  must  be  a  grinding  off  of  the  closing  angles.  There 
must  be  a  removal  of  the  points  of  irritant  friction.  To  get 
rid  of  all  friction  would  be  impossible.  But  dangerous  irritant 
frictions  must  be  eliminated.  Now  we  have  come  to  the  point 
through  these  discussions  where  there  is  a  deadlock  from  which 
we  cannot  proceed  until  something  shall  be  done,  some  conces- 
sion made  by  some  interested  party  in  this  great  business,  by 
which  further  progress  will  be  made  possible.  I  take  note  of 
the  fact  that  up  to  this  time — and  I  am  going  to  speak  kindly 
but  frankly — I  take  note  of  the  fact  that  up  to  this  time  there 
have  been  material  concessions  made  by  a  majority  of  both 
Commissions.  That  is  to  say,  upon  our  part  we,  holding  from 
the  start  to  the  right  of  our  negro  membership  for  proportion- 
ate representation  in  the  General  Conference — it  has  been  con- 
ceded that  there  shall  be  a  fixed  representation,  a  representation 
accommodated  to  the  evident  demands  of  our  association. 
[The  time  of  Bishop  Cranston  here  expired  and  was,  on  mo- 
tion, extended.]    On  the  other  hand,  there  have  been  material 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


215 


concessions  made  by  our  brothers  of  the  Church,  South,  in  the 
recognition  of  the  principle  of  having  colored  delegates 
sit  in  the  General  Conference.  At  this  point  I  am  com- 
pelled to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that,  while  at  the  outset 
our  colored  brethren  showed  some  disposition  to  make  some 
concessions  in  the  interest  of  unification,  which  they  themselves 
desired  and  have  repeatedly  so  expressed  themselves,  the  con- 
cessions which  at  the  outset  appeared  as  a  possible  solvent  of 
our  immediate  difficulty  were  later  withdrawn  and  that,  as  the 
matter  stands  to-day,  all  of  the  concessions  have  been  made 
by  their  white  brethren  of  both  Churches;  and  while  I  am  not 
blaming  them  for  it,  I  am  simply  stating  the  facts,  the  col- 
ored membership  stands  absolutely  fixed  in  its  demand  up  to 
this  moment.  Now  I  am  compelled  to  call  attention  to  an- 
other fact,  that  in  the  discussion  which  has  developed  there  is 
an  antagonism  on  the  part  of  our  colored  brethren  to  the  con- 
sideration of  any  additional  colored  membership  entering  into 
the  problem  at  this  time.  I  do  not  censure  that.  I  simply 
state  it  as  a  fact  that  these  brethren  resist  the  proposi- 
tion publicly  made  and  officially  promulgated  by  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  of  which  they  are  a  part,  a  proposi- 
tion authorized  by  the  General  Conference  and  expressed  in  the 
appointment  of  a  Commission  for  the  purpose  of  facilitating 
the  union  of  colored  Methodist  bodies  in  the  United  States — 
that  in  the  face  of  that  and  in  the  face  of  repeated  suggestions 
here  the  brethren  stand  here  with  their  constituency  back  of 
them  solidly  against  the  consideration  of  any  additional  mem- 
bership of  any  colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  now  organ- 
ized, through  any  act  or  concession  of  theirs.  Again,  if  I  am  not 
mistaken,  there  is  another  fact  that  is  pertinent,  and  that  is,  when 
the  great  matter  of  the  evangelization  of  Africa  is  brought 
forward — I  do  not  know  if  this  has  been  mentioned  in  the  Joint 
Commission  or  not,  but  if  it  has  not,  it  has  at  least  been  in  the 
committees — brethren  do  not  respond  to  the  appeal  in  behalf  of 
Africa.  That  is  to  say,  this  proposition  now  pending  involving 
their  rights  to  representation  in  the  General  Conference,  as  I 
understand  them,  is  not  to  be  connected  with  any  racial  re- 
sponsibility for  the  evangelization  of  Africa.  Some  of  us  have 
made  the  plea  that  Africa  must  be  evangelized  by  Africans. 
In  presenting  the  cause  of  our  negro  schools  to  the  Church  it 
has  been  repeatedly  urged  that  if  Africa  ever  is  evangelized  it 
must  be  done  by  Africans.  That  question  seems  to  have  been 
entirely  lost  sight  of  and  that  great  responsibility  for  the  mo- 
ment obscured,  I  will  not  say  willfully,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact. 
Now  let  me  pause  here  just  long  enough  to  make  a  disclaimer. 
I  am  not  blaming  these  brethren  for  being  influenced  by  the 
telegrams  and  letters  which  are  constantly  coming  to  them 


216    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

from  the  leaders  of  our  colored  membership.  They  must  pay 
attention  to  those  protests;  but  I  do  not  think  those  protests 
ought  to  hold  back  the  action  of  this  Joint  Commission  any 
more  than  the  superficial  protests  that  are  now  being  pub- 
lished in  our  Churches  on  both  sides  over  or  under  the  names 
of  men  who  have  not  thought  this  matter  through  or  prayed 
over  it  as  the  members  of  this  Commission  have  thought  and 
prayed,  should  affect  the  action  of  this  Commission  at  this  time — 
or  ever  for  that  matter.  Our  duties  are  not  to  be  defined  for 
us  by  the  hasty  criticisms  that  may  be  indulged  in  by  interested 
persons  without  responsibility.  We  have  a  solemn,  a  sacred 
responsibility  which  can  attach  to  no  other  class  of  men  in 
either  Church.  We  are  set  at  this  thing,  not  to  make  effective 
the  ideas  of  either  Church  as  a  whole  or  the  personal  ideas  I 
may  have  had  as  to  the  rights  of  the  colored  men  nor  the  person- 
al ideas  of  the  brethren  from  the  South,  but  we  are  put  here  to 
compromise — I  use  that  word  in  the  best  sense,  compromise 
differences — and  I  hope  that  we  shall  be  able  to  show  to  the  two 
Churches  compromises  of  a  high  degree  of  efficiency  for  the 
great  task  that  God  has  appointed  for  Methodism  in  the  world. 
Now  how  are  we  going  to  reach  it?  My  call  is  to  our  colored 
brethren  here  and  to  those  behind  them,  and  I  make  it  solemnly 
before  God,  that  they  shall  be  ready  to  do  something  better  as 
an  expression  of  their  faith  in  God  and  Methodism,  something 
better  as  an  expression  of  their  Christian  manhood,  than  to 
stand  squarely  and  uncompromisingly  upon  every  technical  right 
attaching  to  their  ecclesiastical  relations.  Of  course  it  is  our 
business  to  find  adjustments  that  shall  commend  themselves 
from  the  standpoint  of  equity.  I  don't  say  expediency;  but, 
after  all,  I  believe  New  Testament  ethics  recognize  the  highest 
expediency  as  good  motive  and  that  expediency  in  such  mat- 
ters as  are  at  stake  here  is  to  be  considered  and  valued.  I  am 
not  willing  to  stand  at  variance  with  the  other  members  of  my 
Commission  and  go  out  and  defend  myself  against  them.  I  am 
not  willing  to  go  before  the  Methodist  public  and  attack  the 
rights  of  any  class  of  members.  I  cannot  do  it.  It  is  against 
the  behavior  of  my  whole  life.  Why  can't  you  take  a  position 
like  this:  Admit  our  colored  brethren  with  their  full  represen- 
tation, as  Brother  Penn  figures  it,  about  five  per  cent;  admit 
them  with  the  understanding  that  they  shall  have  until  1928  to 
readjust  themselves  to  the  Associate  General  Conference?  I 
want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  when  the  Commis- 
sion at  Chattanooga  adjourned  the  "Suggestions"  of  that  Com- 
mission were  met  with  derision  all  through  our  Church.  I  re- 
call what  my  friend  of  the  Central  Christian  Advocate  had  to 
say  at  that  time.    He  said  it  was  not  union,  but  division.  And 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


that  view  of  the  matter  prevailed  for  some  months.  That  was 
the  reason  why  I  think  we  did  not  take  it  up  at  the  General 
Conference  of  1912;  but  a  year  ago  the  General  Conference  of 
19 16  accepted  those  suggestions  after  they  had  been  accepted 
two  years  before  by  the  Church,  South,  as  a  rational  and  feasi- 
ble basis  of  unification  and  upon  which  they  ordered  and  instruct- 
ed the  Commission  to  proceed.  It  is  probable  that  if  a  propo- 
sition of  this  kind  were  to  go  out  to  the  Church  it  would  not  be 
acceptable  to  our  colored  membership.  I  do  not  think  any  plan 
would  be  acceptable  to  all  any  more  than  this  whole  plan  by 
which  we  are  seeking  to  come  together  is  acceptable  to  any  one 
of  us.  I  would  give  them  full  representation  without  condition 
or  limitation,  but  I  am  not  permitted  to  do  that.  I  am  hopeful  of 
some  point  of  agreement  covering  conditions  represented  by  the 
brethren  of  the  Church,  South.  I  do  not  hold  a  single  man  re- 
sponsible as  obstinately  contending  for  something  impossible 
as  he  looks  upon  his  own  side  of  the  case.  We  are  trying  to  ac- 
commodate each  other.  Bishop  McDowell  is  entirely  right,  as 
I  see  things,  in  his  contention  that  five  per  cent  of  the  negro 
representation  and  of  missionary  representation  will  not  be  any 
peril  to  the  General  Conference.  Suppose  we  have  100  out  of 
700.  Where  is  there  any  danger?  Bishop  Bashford  and  all 
those  good  men  over  there  will  feel  better  and  our  work*  will 
be  forwarded.  We  want  this  so  that  we  can  go  forward  with 
the  work  of  God  unembarrassed  and  unhindered  within  or 
without  by  criticism  often  instigated  by  the  spirit  of  evil,  but 
which  nevertheless  has  its  effect  in  retarding  the  work. 

R.  E.  Jones:  A  question  of  personal  privilege. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  State  the  question  of  per- 
sonal privilege,  Doctor. 

R.  E.  Jones:  I  shall  try  to  keep  within  the  bounds  of  per- 
sonal privilege,  and  I  ask  your  indulgence  just  a  moment — 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  State  the  question  of  per- 
sonal privilege. 

R.  E.  Jones :  I  will.  I  want  you  to  be  patient  with  me  just 
a  moment.  I  would  not  make  this  statement  if  we  were  not 
making  history  or  if  this  lecture  had  been  delivered  to  me  pri- 
vately, but  I  have  been  accused  of  inconsistency — that  is,  that 
the  colored  men  have  been  unwilling  to  make  concessions  and 
have  been  thoroughly  holding  ourselves  aloof  from  the  problem 
in  Africa. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Personally  I  would  be  glad 
to  hear  Dr.  Jones,  but  as  a  matter  of  law  this  is  not  a  question 
of  personal  privilege. 

Bishop  Leete :  I  wish  that  Dr.  Jones  would  consider  it  un- 
necessary to  make  his  statement,  but  if  he  does  consider  it 
necessary  I  am  sure  that  every  man  here  is  willing  to  hear  him. 


218    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

J.  R.  Pepper:  I  move  that  Dr.  Jones  be  permitted  to  speak. 
The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

R.  E.  Jones :  I  regret  to  do  this  very  much ;  but,  so  far  as  I 
know,  my  position  has  been  thoroughly  consistent  from  the  time 
we  met  in  Baltimore  until  now,  and  I  have  acted  not  as  a  Com- 
missioner representing  a  third  element  of  the  Commission,  but 
as  a  member  of  the  Commission  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  and  then  as  concessions  have  been  made  by  our  Com- 
mission I  have  been  a  party  to  them.  This  is  not  quite  within 
the  bounds  of  a  question  of  personal  privilege,  but  we  have 
made  substantial  concessions  and  we  are  perfectly  willing  to 
make  further  substantial  concessions.  We  have  agreed  to  the 
grouping  of  these  Conferences  and  we  have  agreed  to  a  limited 
episcopacy.  It  was  pretty  generally  said  when  I  made  the 
statement  in  Savannah  that  I  was  in  error,  but  Bishop  John- 
son, of  our  Church,  has  written  a  letter  substantiating  every- 
thing I  said  with  reference  to  the  grouping  of  our  Conferences 
in  this  country  with  the  Conferences  in  Africa. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  desire  to  say  that  more  than  five  mem- 
bers of  the  Commission  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
unite  in  the  request  for  a  separate  meeting  of  that  Commission 
at  this  time,  and  I  therefore  present  that  request  from  our  Com- 
mission. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  It  needs  no  action.  It  is 
granted. 

John  M.  Moore:  I  beg  you  to  allow  the  Southern  Commission 
to  withdraw  for  a  few  minutes. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  I  move  that  when  we  adjourn  we  adjourn 
to  meet  as  a  Joint  Commission  at  eight  o'clock. 

The  motion  was  seconded. 

W.  N.  Ainswortb:  It  is  not  known  how  long  the  separate 
meetings  of  the  Commissions  will  be.  We  had  better  make  it 
subject  to  the  desire  of  the  two  Commissions. 

John  F.  Goucher:  I  move  that  when  we  adjourn  we  adjourn 
to  meet  at  9 :30  to-morrow  morning. 

The  motion  was  seconded. 

Several  Voices :  No. 

John  F.  Goucher :  It  is  not  certain  that  we  will  be  ready  to 
meet  this  evening.  There  is  a  great  weariness  on  some  of  us, 
and  I  doubt  if  we  would  like  to  stand  a  night  session. 

The  motion  to  adjourn  until  to-morrow  morning  at  9:30 
o'clock  was  put  to  a  vote  and  was  lost  by  19  for  to  21  against. 

The  motion  of  Dr.  Van  Cleve  to  adjourn  until  eight  o'clock 
this  evening  was  then  put  to  a  vote  and  carried. 

The  meeting  was  then  adjourned  with  a  benediction. 


St.  Louis  Meeting  219 


Evening  Session. 

The  Commission  was  called  to  order  by  Bishop  Collins  Denny 
at  8  p.m. 

The  devotional  exercises  were  conducted  by  Dr.  W.  J.  Young. 
The  hymn,  "Come,  thou  Fount  of  every  blessing,"  was  sung. 
Dr.  Young  led  in  prayer. 

The  roll  was  called  and  the  following  were  present :  Bishops 
Collins  Denny,  E.  D.  Mouzon,  W.  B.  Murrah,  from  the  M.  E. 
Church,  South ;  Earl  Cranston,  J.  W.  Hamilton,  W.  F.  McDow- 
ell, F.  D.  Leete,  R.  J.  Cooke,  from  the  M.  E.  Church.  Minis- 
ters: F.  M.  Thomas,  W.  J.  Young,  J.  M.  Moore,  C.  M.  Bishop, 
E.  B.  Chappell,  T.  N.  Ivey,  A.  F.  Watkins,  H.  M.  Du  Bose, 
W.  N.  Ainswortfo,  A.  J.  Lamar,  from  the  M.  E.  Church,  South ; 
Edgar  Blake,  D.  G.  Downey,  J.  F.  Goucher,  R.  E.  Jones,  A. 
J.  Nast,  Frank  Neff,  E.  M.  Randall,  C.  B.  Spencer,  J.  W.  Van 
Cleve,  J.  J.  Wallace,  from  the  M.  E.  Church.  Laymen:  M.  L. 
Walton,  H.  N.  Snyder,  P.  D.  Maddin,  R.  S.  Hyer,  J.  H.  Rey- 
nolds, R.  E.  Blackwell,  J.  R.  Pepper,  E.  C.  Reeves,  H.  H. 
White,  E.  W.  Hines,  from  the  M.  E.  Church,  South;  G.  W. 
Brown,  A.  W.  Harris,  C.  W.  Kinne,  I.  G.  Penn,  I.  E.  Robinson, 
H.  W.  Rogers,  Alexander  Simpson,  Jr.,  Rolla  V.  Watt,  J.  R. 
Joy,  C.  A.  Pollock,  from  the  M.  E.  Church.  Rev.  C.  M.  Stuart, 
alternate. 

The  minutes  of  the  previous  session  were  read  and  approved. 
Bishop  Hamilton  took  the  chair. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Hamilton)  :  What  is  before  us? 

Abram  W.  Harris :  I  think  we  ought  to  have  the  report  from 
the  Commission  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Bishop 
Cranston  is  not  here,  but  I  have  the  report  of  what  was  done. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Hamilton)  :  We  will  have  it  now. 

Abram  W.  Harris :  The  following  is  the  action  taken,  and  I 
call  the  attention  of  the  Joint  Commission  to  the  fact  that  it 
begins  with  the  words — 

We  suggest, 

1.  That  there  shall  be  the  following  additional  Regional  Conferences: 

(1)  The  Regional  Conference  for  colored  people. 

(2)  The  Regional  Conference  for  Latin  America. 

(3)  The  Regional  Conference  for  Europe. 

(4)  The  Regional  Conference  for  Eastern  Asia. 

(5)  The  Regional  Conference  for  Southern  Asia. 

2.  These  Conferences  shall  each  have  representation  in  the  General  Con- 
ference in  proportion  to  their  full  membership,  but  no  one  of  these  to 
exceed  5  per  cent  of  the  entire  membership  of  the  General  Conference. 

3.  These  Regional  Conferences  shall  have  the  power  heretofore  proposed 
for  the  Central  Conferences. 

I  move  that  this  report  be  referred  to  the  Committee  of 
Eight  as  the  Committee  of  Conferences  to  consider  the  sug- 


220    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

gestion  and  report,  and  if  I  have  a  second  I  will  say  just  a 
few  words  and  leave  the  matter  in  your  hands. 
The  motion  was  seconded  by  Dr.  Bishop. 

Abram  W.  Harris :  In  making  this  motion  I  am  acting  per- 
sonally. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  I  rise  to  a  question  of  order.  Since  we 
have  brought  our  proposition  here,  ought  we  not  to  hear  a  re- 
sponse from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  are 
they  ready  to  make  an  answer?  If  they  are,  we  will  have  both 
referred.    I  understood  they  were  ready  to  make  an  answer. 

Abram  W.  Harris:  If  there  is  an  answer  from  them,  that 
would  be  the  wise  and  proper  thing  to  do. 

Secretary  Frank  M.  Thomas :  The  Commission  from  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  simply  reaffirms  its  action 
in  approving  of  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Eight  as  amend- 
ed. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Hamilton)  :  The  two  reports  are  be- 
fore you  and  Brother  Harris  has  the  floor. 

Abram  W.  Harris :  I  would  be  glad  to  include  both  papers 
in  my  motion. 

A  reading  of  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Eight  was 
called  for. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Hamilton)  :  You  all  have  it  in  the 
minutes  of  the  proceedings,  have  you  not? 

Edgar  Blake :  Yes,  it  is  on  page  57  of  the  resume. 

Frank  M.  Thomas  read  the  part  referred  to. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Hamilton)  :  You  have  heard  the  re- 
ports.   Now  what  shall  we  do  with  them? 

Abram  W.  Harris:  I  made  a  motion  to  refer. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  May  I  ask  what  effect  that  will  have  on  the 
colored  representation  in  the  General  Conference — how  much 
it  will  increase  it? 

Abram  W.  Harris :  I  understand  it  will  make  it  at  the  pres- 
ent a  little  less  than  five  per  cent  of  the  total,  whatever  that 
may  be. 

A.  J.  Lamar :  Was  that  five  per  cent  put  in  to  cover  that 
case? 

Abram  W.  Harris :  It  was  put  in  as  a  limit — that  is  what 
we  get  first. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Hamilton)  :  A  motion  has  been  made 
and  seconded  that  these  two  reports  be  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee of  Eight,  and  the  matter  is  now  before  you. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  Inadvertently  you  failed  to  state  in  full  the 
action  of  the  Commission  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South.  There  was  a  suggestion  at  the  end  concerning  the  Col- 
ored Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Hamilton):  If  you  will  allow  me  to 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


221 


suggest,  brethren,  I  have  never  been  very  much  in  favor  of 
separate  meetings  of  the  Commissions,  and  I  think  now  to  send 
this  to  the  Committee  of  Eight  without  a  further  discussion 
among  ourselves  will  only  be  delaying  the  matter.  Why  not 
let  us  have  a  free  expression  here?  You  have  our  statement, 
and  I  have  no  doubt  but  what  Bishop  McDowell  will  be  glad 
to  tell  you  how  we  came  to  adopt  this  paper  and  make  any 
further  suggestions,  but  I  would  like  for  you  brethren  to  con- 
sider what  this  Commission  ought  to  do  with  these  two  papers 
before  us. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  My  only  objection  to  that  is  this:  Nearly  ev- 
ery one  of  us  has  stated  his  position  on  this  question,  and  the 
statements  are  in  the  records  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Com- 
mission at  Savannah.  We  have  those  speeches  in  print,  and 
to  go  all  over  them  again  would  simply  be  a  repetition  of  what 
we  have  already  said  and  that  is  of  record. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  That  is  true,  but  we  have 
a  new  proposition. 

A.  F.  Watkins :  I  favor  a  reference  to  the  Committee  of 
Eight.  We  shall  be  glad  to  have  Bishop  McDowell  tell  us  the 
processes  or  methods  by  which  this  result  was  reached;  but  it 
is  a  matter  upon  which  you  have  had  long  conferences  and  the 
suggestions  made  here  on  the  spot.  It  would  be  well  to  allow 
the  Southern  Commissioners  to  have  an  opportunity  to  consider 
the  matter,  and  they  might  then  wish  to  refer  it  to  the  Com- 
mittee of  Eight. 

Frank  Neff:  There  is  one  difficulty.  Dr.  Lamar  says  we 
have  discussed  this  in  all  phases.  As  I  recall  it,  there  is  one 
very  particular  phase  in  the  final  proposition  of  our  brethren 
from  the  Church,  South,  that  has  not  been  discussed  at  all. 
That  is  in  regard  to  those  after  whom  the  Southern  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  looks,  who  do  not  come  into  the  Central 
Conference  for  colored  people  as  do  the  colored  members  of  the 
Northern  Church.  We  have  not  discussed  that  fact.  I  have 
had  something  to  say  on  that  and  I  have  not  had  a  chance  to 
say  it. 

Ira  E.  Robinson :  This  matter  can  be  discussed  by  the  Com- 
mittee of  Conferences.  We  can  discuss  it  when  it  comes  in, 
and  I  hope  the  two  reports  will  come  to  that  Committee  of 
Conferences. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Hamilton)  :  It  was  only  suggested  to 
draw  you  gentlemen  out. 

C.  M.  Bishop:  To  save  time,  let  us  commit  it. 

Edgar  Blake:  If  those  two  reports  are  referred,  I  suggest 
that  Dr.  Penn's  resolution  be  referred  and  any  kindred  matter, 
so  that  the  entire  subject  will  be  before  the  committee. 


222    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


The  Chairman  (Bishop  Hamilton)  :  Do  you  offer  that  as  an 
amendment  ? 

Edgar  Blake :  Let  us  have  that  understanding. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  motion  to  refer  was  carried. 

Frank  M.  Thomas :  I  move  that  this  committee  be  requested 
to  report  by  10  130  in  the  morning. 

Voices :  Let  us  make  it  9 :3c 

Frank  M.  Thomas:  All  right,  I  will  accept  that.  Make  it 
9:30. 

David  C.  Downey :  In  order  that  they  may  get  to  work  right 
away,  I  move  that  we  adjourn  now. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and  carried,  and  the  Commission 
was  dismissed  with  prayer  by  Rev.  Claudius  B.  Spencer. 

FOURTH  DAY,  SATURDAY,  APRIL  13,  1918. 
Morning  Session. 

The  Joint  Commission  met  pursuant  to  adjournment  and  was 
called  to  order  by  the  Chairman,  Bishop  John  W.  Hamilton. 

The  hymn,  "O  for  a  thousand  tongues  to  sing,"  was  sung. 

Prayer  was  offered  by  Dr.  Du  Bose,  who  then  led  in  the  re- 
sponsive  reading  of  the  twenty-fourth  Psalm. 

The  hymn,  "There's  a  wideness  in  God's  mercy,"  was  sung. 

The  roll  was  called  and  the  following  were  present:  Bishops 
Collins  Denny,  E.  D.  Mouzon,  W.  B.  Murrah,  from  the  M.  E. 
Church,  South ;  Earl  Cranston,  J.  W.  Hamilton,  W.  F.  McDow- 
ell, F.  D.  Leete,  R.  J.  Cooke,  from  the  M.  E.  Church.  Minis- 
ters :  F.  M.  Thomas,  W.  J.  Young,  J.  M.  Moore,  C.  M.  Bishop, 
E.  B.  Chappell,  T.  N.  Ivey,  A.  F.  Watkins,  H.  M.  Du  Bose, 
W.  N.  Ainsworth,  A.  J.  Lamar,  from  the  M.  E.  Church, 
South;  Edgar  Blake,  D.  G.  Downey,  J.  F.  Goucher,  R.  E.  Jones, 
A.  J.  Nast,  Frank  Neff,  E.  M.  Randall,  C.  B.  Spencer,  J.  W. 
Van  Cleve,  J.  J.  Wallace,  from  the  M.  E.  Church.  Laymen : 
M.  L.  Walton,  H.  N.  Snyder,  P.  D.  Maddin,  R.  S.  Hyer,  J.  H. 
Reynolds,  R.  E.  Blackwell,  J.  R.  Pepper,  E.  C.  Reeves,  H.  H. 
White,  E.  W.  Hines,  from  the  M.  E.  Church,  South;  G.  W. 
Brown,  A.  W.  Harris,  C.  W.  Kinne,  I.  G.  Penn,  I.  E.  Robin- 
son, H.  W.  Rogers,  Alexander  Simpson,  Jr.,  Rolla  V.  Watt,  J. 
R.  Joy,  C.  A.  Pollock,  from  the  M.  E.  Church.  Rev.  C.  M. 
Stuart,  alternate. 

The  minutes  were  read  and  approved. 

Bishop  Denny  took  the  chair. 

Bishop  Cooke :  I  shall  not  be  able  to  remain  during  the  en- 
tire session,  being  compelled  by  official  duties  to  go  away.  Be- 
fore I  go  I  would  like  to  make  a  motion,  not  for  the  purpose 
of  debate  but  simply  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  the  Commis- 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


223 


sion  in  the  future  consideration  of  this  matter  to  feel  free  to 
deal  with  it.  What  I  desire,  without  any  desire  for  debate, 
is  simply  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  a  paragraph  in  the 
report  of  the  Committee  on  Judicial  Council  was  adopted.  On 
page  15  I  want  to  move  a  reconsideration  of  this  clause:  "In 
all  cases  the  decision  of  the  Judicial  Council  shall  be  final; 
provided  that  if,  on  a  constitutional  question,  there  shall  be  a 
majority  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the  General 
Conference  disapproving  a  decision  of  the  Judicial  Council, 
its  construction  of  the  question  involved  shall  then  be  sent  to 
the  Annual  Conferences  for  final  approval  or  disapproval." 
I  would  like  to  have  that  left  so  that  we  can  consider  it  in 
the  future. 

The  motion  was  seconded. 

P.  D.  Maddin:  What  do  you  want  to  do  with  that?  You 
did  not  read  it  as  it  stands  and  it  has  been  amended  twice. 
You  read  from  the  wrong  copy. 

Bishop  Cooke :  No,  I  did  not. 

P.  D.  Maddin :  At  least  you  read  from  an  uncorrected  one. 

Bishop  Cooke :  It  reads  exactly  this  way :  "In  all  cases  the 
decision  of  the  Judicial  Council  shall  be  final;  provided  that  if, 
on  a  constitutional  question,  there  shall  be  a  majority  of  two- 
thirds  of  the  members  of  the  General  Conference  disapproving 
a  decision  of  the  Judicial  Council,  its  construction  of  the  ques- 
tion involved  shall  then  be  sent  to  the  Annual  Conferences  for 
final  approval  or  disapproval,  as  provided  in  Subsection  11, 
Section  2,  Article  VIII.  of  the  Constitution." 

P.  D.  Maddin :  What  do  you  want  to  do  with  it  when  you 
reconsider  it? 

Bishop  Cooke:  If  I  state  that,  it  may  open  debate,  and  I  do 
not  want  to  open  debate  now. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  A  motion  to  reconsider 
will  open  the  whole  question. 

Bishop  Cooke:  I  am  very  well  aware  of  that.  I  thought  I 
might  precipitate  debate,  and  if  you  will  leave  it  where  we  have 
it  there,  so  that  we  can  debate  it  in  the  future,  it  would  be  all 
right;  but  if  you  want  to  know  what  I  want  to  do  with  it,  it  is 
this :  As  it  is  now  it  will  involve  a  great  waste  of  time  in  the 
General  Conference.  If  a  decision  goes  down,  the  decision 
will  be  passed  upon  by  the  Annual  Conferences  and  then  it 
will  come  back  to  the  General  Conferences.  The  General  Con- 
ference will  then  have  to  formulate  an  amendment  or  not,  and 
if  it  formulates  one  it  will  go  down  to  the  Annual  Conferences 
again  and  there  shall  be  two  quadrenniums  taken  up  in  the  de- 
cision of  the  Judicial  Council.  If  the  General  Council  would 
decide  against  a  decision  of  the  Judicial  Council  on  a  subject 
and  then  formulate  an  amendment  and  send  the  amendment 


224    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

down  at  the  same  time,  it  would  all  be  done  at  one  time.  Oth- 
erwise you  will  have  four  years  or  more.  That  is  what  I 
wanted  you  to  reconsider. 

A.  J.  Lamar :  Bishop  Cooke  says  he  does  not  want  to  pro- 
voke debate.  That  would  inevitably  provoke  debate.  There 
will  be  a  debate  and  a  lengthy  one  if  you  insist  on  that  motion. 

David  G.  Downey:  Nothing  of  this  sort  has  been  positively 
adopted.  I  suppose  it  is  all  open  to  amendment.  It  is  only  a 
tentative  adoption  thus  far.  Undoubtedly  this  matter  will  come 
up  before  us  again  before  its  final  adoption.  Bishop  Cooke's 
amendment  can  be  made  then. 

C.  M.  Bishop :  In  the  interest  of  order  I  desire  to  offer  the 
following  as  the  order  of  procedure : 

That  the  Chairman  be  instructed  to  rule  out  all  other  matters,  includ- 
ing what  are  called  privileged  matters,  until  the  vote  on  the  pending  ques- 
tion be  taken;  that,  if  not  previously  taken,  the  vote  shall  be  ordered  at 
12  o'clock  noon  to-day;  that  it  shall  be  taken  by  ayes  and  noes  by  the 
Joint  Commission ;  and  that  immediately  upon  the  declaration  of  the  vote, 
if  a  majority  vote  in  the  affirmative,  the  two  Commissions  shall  retire 
for  separate  sessions  and  vote  on  the  bill  passed  by  the  Joint  Commission 
and  report  before  adjournment  for  noon. 

After  consultation  with  one  member  of  each  Commission,  I 
offer  this  in  order,  if  possible,  to  get  some  decision  on  these 
matters. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  I  would  like  to  rise  to  a  privileged 
matter  before  this  matter  comes  up.  I  am  compelled  to  leave 
on  the  12:02  train.  I  shall  probably  not  be  here  when  the  final 
vote  is  taken,  and  I  want  to  leave  my  proxy  on  that  matter 
with  Bishop  McDowell.  I  do  not  think  a  general  proxy  should 
be  left,  but  only  on  that  matter. 

Bishop  McDowell :  What  matter? 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  The  matter  of  the  report  of  the  Commit- 
tee of  Eight,  last  night's. 

Abram  W.  Harris:  I  dislike  very  much  to  say  this,  but  I 
think  it  is  very  unwise  to  leave  proxies,  and  I  think  we  should 
have  a  clear  vote  to  determine  whether  proxies  are  to  be  per- 
mitted on  any  or  all  matters. 

Bishop  Cooke:  I  may  have  to  leave  also,  and  I  desire  to 
leave  my  proxy  on  this  particular  matter  with  Bishop  McDow- 
ell. 

On  motion  duly  made  and  seconded  the  requests  were 
granted. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  In  that  immediate  connec- 
tion let  me  read  what  I  hold  in  my  hand.  I  have  a  written 
statement  from  Bishop  Hoss  as  follows:  "I  request  Bishop 
Collins  Denny  to  cast  my  vote  on  all  questions  arising  in  our 
own  Commission  as  well  as  in  the  Joint  Commission." 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


225 


Edgar  Blake:  I  question  whether  we  should  have  any  blank 
proxies.  I  have  no  objection  to  proxies  on  the  report  of  this 
Committee  of  Eight  to  men  who  have  participated  in  the  dis- 
cussion, but  I  question  whether  any  man's  proxy  should  be 
turned  over  to  any  one  when  the  individual  has  not  heard  the 
discussion.  I  think  our  experience  at  Savannah  was  sufficient 
to  convince  us  of  the  unwisdom  of  that  course. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  request  is  made  by 
Bishop  Hoss.   I  hear  no  motion. 

H.  H.  White :  I  move  that  the  request  be  granted. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  move  that  the  proxy  cover  only  the  matter 
before  us. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  I  have  not  the  authority  on 
that.    It  would  have  to  be  as  given. 

Edgar  Blake :  It  is  for  the  Commission  to  determine  how 
much. 

Bishop  Leete:  What  we  are  trying  to  get  at  is  to  readjust 
the  opinions  of  our  men  with  reference  to  these  important  mat- 
ters in  such  a  way  that  they  may  be  satisfied  with  the  repre- 
sentation made,  both  implicitly  and  actually.  Bishop  Hoss  is 
sufficiently  well  acquainted  with  Bishop  Denny  and  his  opin- 
ions, and  they  have  talked  over  the  matter.  That  being  the 
case,  Bishop  Denny's  vote  records  what  Bishop  Hoss  wants  to 
have  recorded,  and  I  think  that  privilege  should  be  granted. 
The  Church  at  large  wants  to  know  what  we  feel  about  these 
things,  and  any  man  should  have  the  right  to  use  a  proxy. 
These  men  know  what  they  are  doing  when  they  give  these 
proxies,  and  they  have  a  right  to  be  represented  here  and  be- 
fore the  Church.  The  mere  fact  that  they  are  unable  to  be 
present  at  this  time  ought  not  to  keep  them  from  being  repre- 
sented on  this  great  question,  and  I  hope  that  all  proxies  will 
be  recognized.  A  Commissioner  should  have  the  right  to  let 
the  Church  know  where  he  stands. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  I  think  everything  that  Bishop  Hoss  de- 
sires and  everything  that  Dr.  Blake  desires  to  safeguard  and 
everything  that  has  been  represented  by  Bishop  Leete  will  be 
covered  if  we  limit  the  proxies  on  the  final  vote  on  the  matters 
adopted,  if  Dr.  Blake  will  accept  that  amendment. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  will  accept  that  if  you  put  it,  "whatever  has 
been  or  may  be  tentatively  adopted." 

Bishop  Denny:  I  could  not  vote  Bishop  Hoss's  proxy  under 
those  circumstances,  but  I  would  not  have  that  to  influence  you. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  What  are  we  voting  on? 

The  Chairman   (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  amendment  is  that 
proxies  be  limited  to  the  matters  that  have  been  tentatively 
adopted  or  shall  be  tentatively  adopted. 
15 


226    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


David  G.  Downey :  I  move  that  that  amendment  lie  on  the 
table. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

A  further  vote  being  taken,  the  motion  of  Bishop  McDowell 
was  carried. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Dr.  Bishop's  motion  is 
before  us.  Are  you  ready  to  vote  on  the  resolution  of  Dr. 
Bishop?    The  Secretary  will  please  read  it. 

The  resolution  was  read,  as  follows : 

That  the  Chairman  be  instructed  to  rule  out  all  other  matters,  includ- 
ing what  are  called  privileged  matters,  until  the  vote  on  the  pending  ques- 
tion be  taken ;  that,  if  not  previously  taken,  the  vote  shall  be  ordered  at 
12  o'clock  noon  to-day;  that  it  shall  be  taken  by  ayes  and  noes  by  the 
Joint  Commission ;  and  that  immediately  upon  the  declaration  of  the  vote, 
if  a  majority  vote  in  the  affirmative,  the  two  Commissions  shall  retire 
for  separate  sessions  and  vote  on  the  bill  passed  by  the  Joint  Commission 
and  report  before  adjournment  for  noon. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  resolution  was  agreed  to. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  There  is  a  matter  that 
Dr.  Harris  called  attention  to  and  that  ought  to  be  read  into  the 
record.  We  will  hear  it  and  then  you  can  decide  what  is  to  be 
done  with  it. 

Secretary  Harris  presented  a  petition  signed  by  pastors  of 
the  Brookfield  District  of  the  Missouri  Conference  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  move  that  that  be  put  in  the  record. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

The  petition,  signed  by  Thomas  M.  Mott  and  others,  is  as  fol- 
lows : 

To  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification  of  Methodism. 

Dear  Fathers  and  Brethren:  We,  members  of  the  Missouri  Confer- 
ence, Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  do  hereby  present  to  you  the  follow- 
ing memorial : 

Be  it  known  that  we  are  unhesitatingly  in  favor  of  the  unification  of 
Methodism.  We  have  long  striven  and  earnestly  prayed  for  it,  and  we 
will  cease  not  so  to  do  until  it  be  realized.  But,  being  perhaps  more 
vitally  affected  than  other  localities,  we  are  impelled  most  earnestly  to 
protest  the  adoption  of  the  tentative  plan  announced  by  your  body  for 
the  following  significant  reasons : 

r.  It  would  not  afford  a  real  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  such  as  is 
either  of  our  bodies  as  now  constituted.  Rather  it  would  be  a  new  and 
different  Church,  and  would  eliminate  from  the  world  the  present  form 
of  Methodism,  which  would  be  a  misfortune  to  either  of  our  great 
Churches,  as  it  would  be  to  the  world.  It  would  be  so  because  it  pro- 
poses the  elimination  of  the  present  constituticnal  General  Conference, 
and  the  substitution  of  a  so-called  General  Conference  which  would  be 
deprived  the  privilege  of  legislating  for  local  areas.  The  Regional  Con- 
ferences, which  must  be  provincial,  are  to  be  empowered  to  do  this,  as 
well  as  to  select  their  own  bishops.    The  General  Conference  would  thus 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


227 


be  shorn  of  one  of  its  supreme  and,  we  believe,  its  most  important  func- 
tions. It  is  apparent  that  Regional  Conferences  might  select  men  for  the 
high  office  of  bishop,  not  because  they  were  "world  men,"  but  rather 
for  the  most  provincial  reasons. 

2.  While  we  believe  simplicity  should  be  the  order,  we  find  here  pro- 
posed a  complexity  of  government  almost  incomprehensible  to  the  average 
intelligence.  We  are  offered,  not  an  Organic  Union  in  fact,  but  rather  a 
government  of  Federated  Ecclesiastical  States,  each  of  which  is  to  be 
empowered  to  construct  its  own  legislation.  This  is  to  warrant  that  there 
will  be  as  many  systems  of  local  laws  as  there  are  divisions,  and  often 
these  laws  may  be  at  absolute  variance.  This  would  assure,  not  one 
Church,  but  as  many  local  Churches,  with  as  varied  governing  rules  as 
there  are  divisions. 

3.  But  especially  do  we  protest  the  proposed  boundaries  of  the  Regional 
Conferences.  We  believe  it  to  be  inequitable,  and  extremely  unjust  to 
our  border  territory.  We  hold  that,  in  justice  to  either  Church,  the 
boundaries  should  be  so  adjusted,  North  and  South  and  East  and  West, 
as  to  approximately  balance  between  the  two  bodies.  The  plan  as  now 
proposed  places  all  the  border  territory  into  regional  divisions  which  run 
South  entirely,  whereas  we  hold  that  equity  would  include  an  equal  bal- 
ance of  territory  North  of  the  border  lines.  Feeling  thus,  we  of  Missouri, 
who  are  most  vitally  concerned,  can  never  consent  to  any  form  of  unifica- 
tion with  the  regional  lines  as  indicated  by  this  tentative  plan. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  order  of  business  now 
is  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Eight  acting  as  a  Joint  Com- 
mittee of  Conferences,  which  you  will  please  read. 

Abram  W.  Harris :  Your  Committee  of  Eight,  to  whom  was 
referred  the  status  of  the  Central  Conferences  and  kindred 
matters,  reports  as  follows : 

1.  We  recommend  that  the  name  of  the  Central  Conferences  be  changed 
to  "Regional  Conferences,"  but  that  their  form  of  organization,  privileges, 
powers,  etc.,  shall  remain  the  same  as  now  provided  for  Central  Confer- 
ences. 

2.  We  recommend  as  a  substitute  for  Subsection  7,  page  6  of  the  printed 
plan,  that 

"Each  of  said  Regional  Jurisdictions  shall  be  entitled  to  be  represented 
in  the  General  Conference  by  ten  delegates  (five  ministers  and  five  lay- 
men) for  the  first  one  hundred  thousand  (100,000)  Church  members  or 
less  in  full  connection,  and  four  delegates  (two  ministers  and  two  laymen) 
for  each  additional  one  hundred  thousand  (100,000)  Church  members  in 
full  connection  or  fraction  of  two-thirds  thereof ;  provided  that  none  of 
said  Regional  Jurisdictions  shall  be  entitled  to  more  than  twenty-six 
delegates." 

3.  We  recommend  as  a  substitute  for  the  last  paragraph  on  page  six 
of  the  printed  plan  that: 

"At  the  request  of  any  of  said  Regional  Conferences  the  General  Con- 
ference may  at  any  time,  and  when  the  membership  of  any  of  said  Regional 
Jurisdictions  shall  equal  or  exceed  five  hundred  thousand  (500,000)  the 
General  Conference  shall,  unless  two-thirds  thereof  decide  otherwise,  or- 
ganize said  membership  into  a  Jurisdictional  General  Conference,  with 
a  representation  in  the  General  Conference  of  five  ministers  and  five  lay- 
men only  and  without  the  right  to  vote  therein  except  on  those  matters 
which  affect  their  relations  to  the  Church." 

4.  We  recommend  that  an  equitable  provision  be  made  by  the  General 
Conference  for  the  financial  support  of  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  by  setting  apart  a  designated  amount,  or  a  fixed  percentage  of 


228    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

the  total  annual  offerings  of  the  reorganized  Church,  for  the  support  of 
work  among  colored  people. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  Does  that  say  "for  the  support  of  the  work 
among  the  colored  people"  or  "among  the  colored  people  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  America"?  Exactly  what  does 
that  say? 

Edgar  Blake:  It  reads,  "for  the  support  of  work  among  col- 
ored people."  Now  to  explain  this  report :  We  recommend 
that  the  name  of  the  Central  Conferences  be  changed  to  Re- 
gional Conferences,  so  that  the  sentence  would  read :  "There 
shall  be  the  following  additional  Regional  Conferences."  I 
will  say  that  we  would  have  to  designate  those  as  different 
groups.  We  would  have  to  say  Group  A,  Group  B,  etc.  It 
is  almost  necessary  that  we  use  that  sort  of  designation.  That 
is  what  we  bring  to  you.  Instead  of  calling  them  Central  Con- 
ferences we  call  them  Regional  Conferences.  "But  that  their 
form  of  organization,  privileges,  powers,  etc.,  shall  remain  the 
same  as  now  provided  for  Central  Conferences."  In  other 
words,  there  would  be  no  change  in  the  groups  of  the  Central 
Conferences  except  that  we  would  call  them  Regional  Confer- 
ence Group  A,  Regional  Conference  Group  B.  The  powers, 
privileges,  form  of  organization,  etc.,  would  remain  the  same. 

2.  We  recommend  as  a  substitute  for  Subsection  7,  page  six  of  the 
printed  plan,  that 

"Each  of  said  Regional  Jurisdictions  shall  be  entitled  to  be  represented 
in  the  General  Conference  by  ten  delegates  (five  ministers  and  five  lay- 
men) for  the  first  one  hundred  thousand  (100,000)  Church  members  or 
less  in  full  connection,  and  four  delegates  (two  ministers  and  two  laymen) 
for  each  additional  one  hundred  thousand  (100,000)  Church  members  in 
full  connection  or  fraction  of  two-thirds  thereof ;  provided  that  none  oi 
said  Regional  Jurisdictions  shall  be  entitled  to  more  than  twenty-six 
delegates." 

Now,  taking  for  an  illustration  our  colored  membership, 
they  would  have  ten  for  the  first  100,000,  four  for  the  next 
100,000,  four  for  the  next  100,000,  which  would  make  18  dele- 
gates at  present  in  the  General  Conference  as  representatives  of 
our  colored  membership.    They  could  never  go  beyond  26. 

J.  R.  Pepper:  Could  a  fractional  part  be  represented? 

Edgar  Blake:  Yes,  two-thirds  of  one  hundred  thousand. 

Bishop  McDowell:  On  the  first  100,000 — it  is  100,000  or 
less. 

Edgar  Blake :  Yes.  Every  one  of  those  regions  would  have 
ten  delegates,  Europe,  Eastern  Asia,  Southern  Asia,  Latin 
America,  etc. 

3.  We  recommend  as  a  substitute  for  the  last  paragraph  on  page  six  of 
the  printed  plan  that : 

"At  the  request  of  any  of  said  Regional  Conferences  the  General  Con- 
ference may  at  any  time,  and  when  the  membership  of  any  of  said  Regional 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


229 


Jurisdictions  shall  equal  or  exceed  five  hundred  thousand  (500,000)  the 
General  Conference  shall,  unless  two-thirds  thereof  decide  otherwise,  or- 
ganize said  membership  into  a  Jurisdictional  General  Conference,  with  a 
representation  in  the  General  Conference  of  five  ministers  and  five  laymen 
only,  and  without  the  right  to  vote  therein  except  on  those  matters  which 
affect  their  relations  to  the  Church." 

This  is  very  similar,  you  will  notice,  to  what  we  have  called 
Bishop  McDowell's  plan.  The  only  difference  is  that  the  rep- 
resentation is  a  little  larger. 

E.  C.  Reeves :  And  it  has  to  be  done  on  the  request  of  the 
colored  people. 

Edgar  Blake :  It  becomes  a  Jurisdictional  General  Confer- 
ence when  you  reach  500,000  unless  two-thirds  of  the  General 
Conference  prohibit  it  from  becoming  such.  That  makes  a 
different  view  of  the  matter.  It  must  become  such  unless  the 
General  Conference  by  a  two-thirds  vote  says  it  may  not  be- 
come such.  Then  the  last  recommendation  is  regarding  the 
support  of  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  Read  that  again. 

Edgar  Blake  (Reading)  :  "We  recommend  that  an  equitable 
provision  be  made  by  the  General  Conference  for  the  financial 
support  of  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  by  setting 
apart  a  designated  amount  or  a  fixed  percentage  of  the  total 
annual  offerings  of  the  reorganized  Church  for  the  support  of 
work  among  colored  people." 

A.  J.  Lamar:  That  is  quite  different  from  the  action  of  our 
Commission. 

Edgar  Blake:  It  is  different  in  this — : 

A.  J.  Lamar :  It  leaves  it  to  the  General  Conference  whether 
it  shall  be  done  or  not. 

Edgar  Blake:  We  do  not  understand  it  that  way,  and  if  we 
have  it  that  way  it  is  not  what  we  mean.  This  is  meant  to  be 
more  helpful  to  the  Colored  Methodist  Church — 

A.  J.  Lamar:  I  have  no  doubt  of  it;  yet,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
it  leaves  the  question  open  to  be  decided  by  the  General  Con- 
ference, and  the  General  Conference  may  say  that  the  equities 
do  not  require  that  we  should  give  anything  in  that  direction, 
or  technically  it  might  say  we  will  give  one  dollar  per  annum 
and  that  that  would  meet  all  the  requirements. 

Edgar  Blake :  That  is  meant  to  be  more  helpful  to  the  Col- 
ored Methodist  Episcopal  Church  than  would  have  been  pos- 
sible under  the  other  provisions. 

E.  C.  Reeves :  I  don't  see  how. 

John  M.  Moore:  I  have  nothing  to  say  except  that  we  have 
worked  over  the  reports  that  came  to  us  and  we  submit  this  as 
the  very  best  adjustment  that  we  can  make  and  we  put  it  in 
your  hands. 


230    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

H.  H.  Rogers:  How  many  of  the  committee  agreed  on  that? 

John  M.  Moore :  Mr.  Simpson  desires  to  offer  a  minority  re- 
port in  one  particular.  The  other  seven  members  submit  this 
to  you  as  the  best  adjustment  they  can  make  and  ask  you  to 
decide  upon  the  merits. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  With  or  without  recommen- 
dations? 

Edgar  Blake :  We  recommend  this  as  the  only  thing  we  can 
present. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  I  have  a  minority  report  in  which  I 
am  alone,  might  be  said  "all  by  myself" :  As  a  member  of  the 
Committee  of  Eight,  I  dissent  from  so  must  of  the  report,  this 
day  presented,  as  relates  to  the  representation  of  the  colored 
membership  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  General 
Conference  of  the  reorganized  Church.  Until  such  time  as 
they  are  organized  into  a  Jurisdictional  General  Conference, 
they  are  entitled,  in  my  judgment,  to  proportional  representation 
unless  they  consent  otherwise.  Without  stopping  to  consider 
the  question  as  to  whether  or  not  legal  ingenuity  could  success- 
fully exclude  them  therefrom,  it  is  clear  that,  as  they  are  now 
full  members  in  that  Church,  and  have  done  nothing  to  forfeit 
any  of  its  rights  and  privileges,  they  ought  not  to  be  deprived 
thereof  without  their  consent.  The  only  suggestion  to  the  con- 
trary has  been  the  backwardness  of  the  race;  but  even  if  all 
that  can  properly  be  claimed  for  that  contention  were  accorded 
to  it,  morally  it  would  only  result  in  the  deprivation  of  privi- 
leges to  all  who  are  personally  backward,  without  regard  to  race. 

Bishop  Hamilton :  Hear !    Hear  ! 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr.:  If  it  be  said  that  while  what  has  been 
above  said  is  theoretically  it  is  not  practically  correct,  because  our 
colored  members  will  have  bishops  of  their  own  race,  then  it  is 
answered  that  it  is  for  those  who  have  rights  and  privileges  to 
determine  for  what  consideration  they  will  surrender  such 
rights  and  privileges,  and  for  them  only.  Two  of  the  honored 
representatives  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  on 
this  committee  have  said,  and  do  not  object  to  my  repeating  it 
here,  that  were  the  position  reversed,  and  our  colored  brethren 
were  full  members  of  their  Church,  they  would  never  agree  to  less 
than  full  proportional  representation  unless  the  colored  members 
themselves  consented  otherwise ;  and  one  added  that  he  believed 
every  member  of  his  Commission  was  of  like  opinion.  Their 
loving  and  chivalrous  provision  for  aiding  the  membership 
of  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  appearing  in 
the  report  of  the  majority,  toward  which  Church  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  is  under  not  even  the  shadow  of  a 
legal  obligation,  fully  bears  out  that  opinion.  For  myself  I 
am  not  willing,  and  so  far  as  I  am  able  to  prevent  it  I  am  not 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


231 


willing  that  the  Church  which  I  represent  shall  be  less  loving 
and  chivalrous  to  its  colored  members,  who  have  a  legal  and 
a  not  less  high  moral  claim  to  consideration  at  its  hands. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  reports  are  before  you. 

Bishop  Cranston :  I  desire  to  ask  a  question.  What  do  you 
mean  by  saying  "proportionate  representation"?  Do  you  mean 
representation  equal  to  that  which  they  have  in  the  Church  at 
present  or  do  you  mean  it  shall  be  calculated  on  the  basis  of  a 
new  membership? 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  Proportionate  to  their  membership 
under  the  new  constitution,  whatever  the  per  cent  is. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  would  like  to  have  the  report  taken  up 
seriatim. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  There  is  no  motion  to  adopt 
yet. 

J.  H.  Reynolds :  I  move  its  tentative  approval. 
Bishop  McDowell :  I  call  for  a  consideration  of  the  report 
seriatim. 

The  motion  was  seconded. 

Bishop  Cranston:  Why  put  the  word  "tentative"  in  there? 
Why  make  that  motion  different  from  all  the  other  reports? 

Bishop  McDowell :  "Tentative"  is  the  proper  word. 

Bishop  Cranston :  Everything  we  are  doing  is  tentative. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  motion  of  Bishop  McDowell  was  car- 
ried. 

H.  W.  Rogers:  Haven't  we  reached  the  stage  where  discus- 
sion is  useless  and  where  matters  should  be  referred  to  the 
separate  Commissions?  We  are  consuming  time  uselessly.  I 
wish  the  member  who  made  the  motion  to  take  it  up  seriatim 
would  withdraw  it  in  order  that  a  resolution  may  be  introduced 
that  this  matter  be  referred  to  each  Commission  for  its  action. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  We  just  passed  a  resolution 
offered  by  Dr.  Bishop  that  there  should  be  a  vote  in  the  Joint 
Commission  on  this,  and  then,  if  the  majority  of  the  Joint 
Commission  desired,  that  the  two  Commissions  might  meet  sep- 
arately. 

H.  W.  Rogers :  I  did  not  hear  that. 

Frank  M.  Thomas :  Does  that  keep  us  from  going  into  sep- 
arate sessions?    Under  the  rule,  that  is  called  for  five  o'clock. 

Bishop  Mouzon:  I  move  that  we  adjourn  to  meet  at  11 : 30. 

The  motion  was  seconded  by  Rev.  Frank  M.  Thomas. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  hope  we  will  not  adjourn.  I  hope  we  will 
keep  in  session.  I  think  both  Commissions  ought  at  least  for 
an  hour  to  consider  these  items,  and  let  both  Commissions  have 
the  benefit  of  all  that  may  be  said  concerning  this  report,  with 
the  reasons  why  the  Committee  of  Eight  came  to  the  conclusion 
that  it  reached.    I  do  not  believe  it  is  wise  for  us  to  separate 


232    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

until  the  Committee  of  Eight  at  least  has  had  a  chance  to  in- 
terpret the  measure  and  give  the  reasons  why  it  brings  in  the 
reports  it  does. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  I  will  explain,  although  what  I  suppose  hardly 
needs  explanation,  that  the  purpose  of  my  motion  to  adjourn  to  a 
fixed  time  was  in  order  that  we  might  meet  as  separate  Com- 
missions and  have  opportunity  to  discuss  this  matter  among 
ourselves  somewhat  before  we  discuss  it  in  the  open  Commission. 
The  series  of  proposals  now  before  us  is  so  new  in  many  of  its 
features  that  we  need  to  have  a  little  time  to  take  our  bearings 
before  we  are  ready  to  discuss  it. 

Edgar  Blake:  If  the  understanding  is  as  stated  by  Bishop 
Mouzon,  that  the  purpose  is  to  come  back  and  discuss  the  re- 
port in  Joint  Commission,  I  have  no  objection. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  It  was  for  that  very  purpose. 

A.  F.  Watkins :  I  respectfully  submit  that  if  we  are  to  dis- 
cuss this  matter  in  joint  session  it  is  better  that  the  discussion 
precede  than  to  follow  the  sectional  meetings.  For  that  reason 
I  do  not  favor  the  motion  to  separate  into  sectional  meetings. 

Bishop  McDowell:  I  think  Bishop  Mouzon's  motion  is  an 
eminently  wise  one  just  now.  This  matter  has  come  to  us  all 
for  the  first  time.  I  had  no  knowledge  of  the  contents  of  this 
report  until  it  was  read,  and  I  presume  that  is  true  of  the  rest 
of  us.  I  think  we  would  do  well  now  to  take  a  prompt  ad- 
journment until  11:30  in  order  that  the  Commissions  might 
meet  separately,  it  being  understood  that  if  either  Commission 
is  not  ready  to  report  at  11  :  30  further  time  will  be  given. 

Bishop  Leete:  I  agree  with  Brother  Mouzon;  but  before  we 
adjourn,  on  that  matter  of  the  newspaper  report — 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  That  has  been  ruled  out  by 
formal  action. 

Bishop  Leete:  I  desire  to  say — 

H.  W.  Rogers:  What  is  this  about? 

Bishop  Leete :  With  reference  to  what  I  said  about  that  mat- 
ter of  the  newspaper  publication,  and  nothing  else. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  Bishop  Leete  can  proceed 
without  objection — and  I  hear  no  objection. 

Bishop  Leete :  I  simply  wish  to  say  this :  I  do  not  say  it  be- 
cause I  feel  terrified,  nor  do  I  wish  to  be  understood  as  saying 
this  just  to  be  talking.  My  accusation  was — and  I  want  it  to 
be  clearly  understood — and  I  think  my  language  will  bear  it 
out,  that  I  think  this  matter  slipped  out  without  any  evil  intention 
on  the  part  of  any  one.  If  any  member  let  it  out  without  in- 
tention, it  should  be  stated,  and  I  wanted  to  clear  all  the  South- 
ern Commission  from  any  idea  that  any  one  had  by  intention 
put  the  matter  in  the  press. 

George  W.  Brown:  It  is  my  opinion  that  we  will  get  a  better 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


233 


personal  expression  by  having  the  discussion  here  than  to  retire 
in  separate  Commission  to  formulate  our  ideas  in  the  two  Com- 
missions, which  might  bias  the  individual  judgment  of  the  Com- 
missioners who  are  here  present.  I  would  like  to  see  a  dis- 
cussion take  place  before  we  separate. 

C.  M.  Bishop:  It  occurs  to  me  that  we  ought  to  deal  with 
this  article  in  the  same  fashion  followed  in  the  other  case,  and 
that  we  will  be  more  nearly  in  order  if  we  proceed  with  the 
discussion  of  this  question,  discussing  it  and  voting  upon  it  in 
the  Joint  Commission  and  then  retire  to  pass  upon  it  as  separate 
Commissions.    I  therefore  object  to  the  motion. 

Ira  E.  Robinson:  I  think  we  will  make  progress  by  separate 
meetings.    I  think  that  is  what  we  need  right  now. 

The  vote  being  taken  for  separate  meetings  was  carried  by 
33  affirmative  votes.  This  being  clearly  a  majority,  the  nega- 
tive vote  was  not  taken. 

The  Joint  Commission  then  took  a  recess  to  permit  the  sep- 
arate meetings,  and  at  12:40  the  Joint  Commission  again  as- 
sembled. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  The  time  for  taking  the 
vote  at  12  o'clock  has  passed. 

W.  N.  Ainsworth :  I  move  that  that  time  be  extended  until 
1:30. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  What  is  the  business  now 
before  us? 

E.  B.  Chappell :  I  move  that  we  hear  the  report  from  the 
Commission  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

Bishop  McDowell :  The  Secretary  of  our  Commission  will 
present  the  report. 

Secretary  Abram  W.  Harris  read  the  report  from  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  as  follows : 

Item  1.  We  recommend  that  the  name  of  the  Central  Conferences  be 
changed  to  "Regional  Conferences,"  but  that  their  form  of  organization, 
privileges,  powers,  etc.,  shall  remain  the  same  as  now  provided  for  Cen- 
tral Conferences. 

Secretary  Abram  W.  Harris :  For  paragraph  2  the  Commit- 
tee substituted  the  action  taken  on  Wednesday — 
Voices :  No,  no. 

Secretary  Abram  W.  Harris:  The  following,  which  is  the 
action  taken  yesterday : 

These  Conferences  shall  each  have  representation  in  the  General  Con- 
ference in  proportion  to  their  full  membership,  but  no  one  of  these  to  ex- 
ceed five  per  cent  of  the  entire  membership  of  the  General  Conference. 

Secretary  Abram  W.  Harris:  For  paragraph  3  there  was  an 
amendment,  to  which  I  call  attention  as  I  read : 


234    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

We  recommend  as  a  substitute  for  the  last  paragraph  on  page  6  of 
the  printed  plan  that  at  the  request  of  any  of  said  Regional  Conferences 
the  General  Conference  may  at  any  time — 

So  far  that  is  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Eight.  I  now 
read  the  portion  for  which  the  substitute  is  made : 

And  when  the  membership  of  any  of  said  Regional  Jurisdictions  shall 
equal  or  exceed  500,000  the  General  Conference  shall,  unless  two-thirds 
thereof  decide  otherwise — 

Now  for  that  we  substitute  the  following: 

At  the  request  of  any  of  said  Regional  Conferences,  or  when  the  mem- 
bership of  any  of  said  Regional  Jurisdictions  shall  equal  or  exceed  500,- 
000,  the  General  Conference  may  organize  said  Regional  Conference  into 
a  Jurisdictional  General  Conference  with  a  representation  in  the  General 
Conference  of  five  ministers  and  five  laymen  only,  and  without  the  right 
to  vote  therein  except  on  those  matters  which  affect  their  relations  to  the 
Church. 

Paragraph  4  was  approved  without  change,  as  follows: 

We  recommend  that  an  equitable  provision  be  made  by  the  General 
Conference  for  the  financial  support  of  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  by  setting  apart  a  designated  amount  or  a  fixed  percentage  of  the 
total  annual  offerings  of  the  reorganized  Church  for  the  support  of  work 
among  colored  people. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  now  move  that  we  hear  a  report  from 
the  Church,  South. 

Frank  M.  Thomas :  The  Commission  of  the  Church,  South, 
reports  that  so  far  it  has  not  reached  a  conclusion  on  the  mat- 
ter. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  move  that  their  time  be  extended. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  rise  simply  to  express  on  behalf  of  the 
Commission  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  our  entire 
understanding  of  your  state  of  mind  and  our  entire  sympathy 
with  your  difficulty.    We  have  had  troubles  of  our  own. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  We  thank  you. 

Bishop  McDowell:  Shall  we  take  a  recess? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Denny)  :  That  depends  on  the  Com- 
mission. 

Bishop  McDowell:  I  desire  to  move  to  adjourn  until  2:30, 
as  your  Commission  desires  to  have  a  further  meeting. 
The  motion  was  seconded. 

W.  N.  Ainswrorth:  If  you  could  possibly  arrange  to  adjourn 
until  two  o'clock,  it  would  accommodate  more  than  one  of  us. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  will  make  the  motion  to  suit  you  gen- 
tlemen, and  I  move  to  recess  until  two  o'clock. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  I  do  not  see  how  we  can  get  along  without 
Dr.  Ainsworth.  He  ought  to  be  here,  but  it  is  going  to  be  im- 
possible for  us  to  get  back  by  two  o'clock.    We  are  willing  to 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


235 


agree  to  that,  but  I  know  we  are  not  going  to  do  it.  It  will  be 
2:30  before  we  get  here. 

Bishop  McDowell :  Then  I  renew  the  original  motion  to  ad- 
journ until  2 :3c 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried and  the  Commission  adjourned  with  a  benediction  by  Bishop 
McDowell. 

Afternoon  Session. 

The  Joint  Commission  was  called  to  order  by  the  Chairman, 
Bishop  Collins  Denny. 

Bishop  Frederick  Leete  conducted  devotional  exercises. 

The  hymn,  "My  faith  looks  up  to  Thee,"  was  sung. 

The  ninth  Psalm  was  read  responsively. 

The  hymn,  "O  for  the  faith  that  will  not  shrink,"  was  sung. 

The  roll  was  called  and  the  following  were  present:  Bishops 
Collins  Denny,  E.  D.  Mouzon,  from  the  M.  E.  Church,  South ; 
Earl  Cranston,  J.  W.  Hamilton,  W.  F.  McDowell,  F.  D.  Leete, 
from  the  M.  E.  Church.  Ministers:  F.  M.  Thomas,  W.  J. 
Young,  J.  M.  Moore,  C.  M.  Bishop,  E.  B.  Chappell,  T.  N.  Ivey, 
A.  F.  Watkins,  H.  M.  Du  Bose,  W.  N.  Ainsworth,  A.  J.  Lamar, 
from  the  M.  E.  Church,  South ;  Edgar  Blake,  D.  G.  Downey, 
J.  F.  Goucher,  R.  E.  Jones,  A.  J.  Nast,  Frank  Neff,  E.  M, 
Randall,  C.  B.  Spencer,  J.  W.  Van  Cleve,  J.  J.  Wallace,  from 
the  M.  E.  Church.  Laymen:  M.  L.  Walton,  H.  N.  Snyder, 
P.  D.  Maddin,  R.  S.  Hyer,  J.  H.  Reynolds,  R.  E.  Blackwell, 
J.  R.  Pepper,  E.  C.  Reeves,  H.  H.  White,  E.  W.  Hines,  from 
the  M.  E.  Church,  South;  G.  W.  Brown,  A.  W.  Harris,  C. 
W.  Kinne,  I.  G.  Penn,  I.  E.  Robinson,  H.  W.  Rogers,  Rolla 
V.  Watt,  J.  R.  Joy,  C.  A.  Pollock,  from  the  M.  E.  Church. 
Rev.  C.  M.  Stuart,  alternate. 

The  minutes  of  the  morning  session  were  read  and  approved. 

Bishop  Earl  Cranston  took  the  chair  as  presiding  officer. 

E.  B.  Chappell:  I  rise  to  a  question  of  personal  privilege. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  We  have  ruled  that  we 
shall  have  no  personal  privileges. 

E.  B.  Chappell:  That  was  for  the  morning  session. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  It  was  to  be  until  the 
vote  was  taken,  and  we  haven't  taken  the  vote. 

E.  B.  Chappell:  I  made  that  motion.  We  haven't  been  able 
to  come  to  a  conclusion,  and  we  had  been  notified  that  the  time 
was  up  and  that  you  were  ready,  and  I  did  not  think  it  would  be 
courteous  to  say  that  we  are  not  ready.  Perhaps  I  ought  to  have 
done  so.  I  made  the  motion  because  I  knew  you  were  ready  and 
waiting. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  What  is  the  business 
this  afternoon? 


236    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

Frank  M.  Thomas:  I  have  a  statement  for  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  which  I  will  read : 

Be  it  resolved  by  the  Commission  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  That  we  agree  to  the  following  as  the  report  of  the  Special  Com- 
mittee of  Eight  under  consideration  : 

1.  We  agree  to  the  change  of  the  name  from  Central  to  Regional. 

2.  As  to  this  section  we  substitute  the  action  in  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  Eight. 

3.  We  take  pleasure  in  presenting  both  reports  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

4.  We  have  taken  our  action  upon  the  principles  of  the  report  of  the 
Committees  on  Conference  and  Judicial  Council. 

Bishop  McDowell:  I  rise  now  simply  to  suggest  that,  with 
those  reports  before  us,  we  hear  the  report  of  the  Special  Com- 
mittee on  the  Status  of  Women  in  the  Reorganized  Church,  and 
I  am  doing  that  simply  for  the  purpose  of  gaining  a  little  bit 
of  time  in  order  that  I  may  confer  with  one  or  two  of  the 
brethren  as  to  the  form  of  the  report. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Is  that  report  ready? 

Bishop  Leete:  The  report  is  in  the  hands  of  Dr.  Van  Cleve 
and  is  ready. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  I  have  not  got  the  report.  I  had  it  this 
morning.  I  don't  find  it  here,  but  I  can  give  you  the  substance 
and  present  it  in  writing  to  the  Secretary.  We  recommend  that 
there  be  added  to  Article  IX.,  Section  1,  Subsection  1  in  sub- 
stance as  follows: 

No  person  eligible  to  membership  in  the  General  Conference  shall  be- 
come ineligible  in  consequence  of  the  unification  of  the  Churches. 

Then  we  add  the  following  concerning  lay  delegates : 

These  delegates  may  be  either  men  or  women,  as  provided  in  Sub- 
section 6,  or  whenever  provided  by  the  Regional  Conference  in  which  they 
have  membership ;  provided  that  those  persons  now  eligible  shall  retain 
their  eligibility  to  election,  and  any  Regional  Conference  may  elect  women 
upon  equal  terms  with  men  if  they  so  desire. 

Edwin  M.  Randall:  A  question:  Did  the  committee  take  into 
consideration  the  right  of  voting  and  the  election  of  delegates 
to  the  General  Conference  as  well? 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  We  took  it  for  granted  that  the  right  to 
be  elected  included  the  right  to  vote. 

Edgar  Blake:  May  we  have  it  read  again? 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  I  gave  it  to  you  from  memory.  I  think  it 
is  just  this  way : 

No  person  eligible  to  membership  in  the  General  Conference  shall  be- 
come ineligible  in  consequence  of  the  unification  of  the  Churches. 

That  is  to  be  added  to  Article  IX.,  Section  i,  Subsection  6. 
J.  R.  Pepper:  What  does  that  mean? 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


237 


J,  W.  Van  Cleve:  It  means  that  any  person  now  eligible  in 
either  of  the  Churches  shall  continue  to  be  eligible  to  election 
after  the  unification. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  Then  put  the  word  "now"  in  there. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  I  think  I  had  better  leave  that  out.  I  will 
tell  you  why  we  left  it  out.  Because  possibly  by  the  time  uni- 
fication is  reached  there  may  not  be  anybody  ineligible. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  Read  that  again.  There  seems  to  be  some- 
thing else.  Are  there  not  a  good  many  colored  people  eligible, 
and  will  not  that  bring  up  that  question  again? 

Ira  E.  Robinson :  And  how  about  the  women  not  now  eligi- 
ble in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  who  may  become 
eligible  ? 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  We  cannot  provide  for  everything  that  is 
going  to  happen  to  every  individual  from  now  on  forever.  We 
have  provided  to  meet  a  situation  which  has  arisen  because  of 
the  diverse  jurisdiction.  When  we  do  that,  we  do  all  we  can 
do.  "No  person  eligible  to  membership  in  the  General  Confer- 
ence shall  be  held  ineligible  by  reason  of  unification."  That  is 
one  thing,  and  then  in  the  case  of  lay  delegates  under  the  head 
of  Regional  Conferences  we  add  this :  "These  delegates  may  be 
either  men  or  women,  as  provided  in  Article  IX.,  Section  1, 
Subsection  6,  or  when  so  provided  by  the  Regional  Conference 
within  which  they  are  members."  That  means  that  where  they 
are  not  now  eligible  under  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  the  Regional  Conference  may  make  them 
eligible  by  a  vote. 

Edgar  Blake :  The  Subcommittee  of  the  Committee  on  Confer- 
ences made  a  recommendation  to  the  Committee  on  Conferences 
which  was  not  acted  upon  by  that  committee  because  I  think  you 
ordered  us  to  report  without  action  for  that  committee.  I  refer 
to  two  resolutions  that  our  subcommittee  of  four  formulated,  and 
the  resolutions  I  have  in  mind  I  think  would  rather  cover  the 
case :  "We  recommend  that,  pending  the  first  meeting  of  the  Unit- 
ed General  Conference,  the  Discipline  of  the  two  Churches  be 
continued  as  the  law  in  their  respective  jurisdictions."  That  sim- 
ply provides  that  in  the  interim  between  the  ratification  of  the 
proposed  Constitution  and  the  first  meeting  of  the  General  Con- 
ference the  law  of  each  Church  shall  remain  the  law  in  that 
Church  pending  the  meeting  of  the  first  General  Conference.  If 
we  adopt  a  resolution  of  that  kind,  that  will  permit  the  Annual 
Conferences  and  the  Lay  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  to  elect  women,  if  they  desire,  to  the  General 
Conference.  It  would  not  oblige  the  Church,  South,  to  do  the 
same  thing.  That  does  not  raise  the  issue  at  all,  and  saves 
us  from  some  discussion.  It  also  provides  for  other  matters 
that  are  quite  as  important  as  this  one.    I  do  not  move  it,  I 


238    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

simply  call  the  attention  of  the  Commission  to  the  recommenda- 
tions prepared  by  that  committee. 

John  M.  Moore :  There  is  no  need  for  any  action  on  this 
question  to-day.  It  is  not  necessary  that  we  remain  here  very 
much  longer.  We  all  know  that  we  are  practically  at  an  end  of 
our  negotiations  for  this  sitting.  We  know  that  we  cannot 
formulate  a  report  that  will  present  a  plan  of  unification.  That 
is  impossible.  I  think  the  thing  for  us  to  do  now  is  to  post- 
pone consideration  of  the  question  and  refer  it  to  the  Commis- 
sion at  its  next  meeting,  and  I  so  move  you  that  further  con- 
sideration of  this  matter  be  postponed  until  the  next  meeting 
of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification. 

Edgar  Blake:  Is  it  certain  that  there  will  be  any  next  meeting? 

Bishop  Hamilton :  We  will  recommend  to  the  General  Con- 
ference that  there  shall  be  a  next  meeting. 

P.  D.  Maddin :  I  move  that  the  report  be  received  and  filed. 

John  M.  Moore:  I  accept  that. 

The  motion  was  seconded. 

Bishop  Leete:  All  that  is  necessary  from  the  committee  is 
that  the  committee  as  a  whole  should  send  it  in.  Dr.  Blake's 
suggestion  was  before  the  committee,  and  three  of  us  at  the 
beginning  favored  it.  I  favored  it  to  the  end,  but  there  was  a 
feeling  that  some  men  wanted  to  have  this  matter  in  some  way 
definitely  decided,  and  especially  Judge  Rogers,  so  the  commit- 
tee brought  in  a  report  which  I  am  sorry  Dr.  Van  Cleve  hasn't 
got  with  him.  When  we  finally  got  it  up,  we  all  agreed,  because 
it  continued  the  status  quo  and  made  it  impossible  for  anybody 
to  raise  any  question.  I  think  the  only  danger  about  the  whole 
matter  is  that  the  women  may  feel  that  we  have  opened  the 
way  for  an  attack  on  what  privileges  they  already  have.  If 
there  is  such  a  danger,  I  think  it  should  not  be  made  possible 
that  such  attacks  should  come,  but  the  committee  has  no  feeling 
against  having  it  go  over. 

W.  N.  Ainsworth :  Was  not  there  a  motion  for  a  postpone- 
ment of  consideration? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  The  motion  was  with- 
drawn for  the  motion  made  by  Brother  Maddin. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  motion  of  Mr.  Maddin  was  carried. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  The  Commission  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  South,  reported  to  you  that,  subject  to  m'inor 
amendments  not  affecting  them  in  principle  at  all,  we  had 
accepted  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Conferences  and  the 
report  of  the  Committee  on  Judicial  Council.  The  members 
of  this  Commission  from  the  Southern  Methodist  Church 
would  like  to  have  a  report  from  our  brethren  of  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church  covering  those  two  items. 

Bishop  McDowell :  We  have  not  acted  upon  them.    I  suppose 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


239 


that,  under  the  rule,  it  will  be  necessary  for  us  to  have  a  sepa- 
rate session  for  a  moment. 

Bishop  Cranston :  We  haven't  had  them  up  yet. 

Bishop  McDowell:  I  understood  Dr.  Du  Bose  to  say  a  min- 
ute ago  that  he  desired  to  move  for  a  separate  session,  and 
if  he  makes  that  motion  I  will  join  with  him. 

H.  M.  Du  Bose:  I  do  make  that  motion.  A  number  of  us 
have  to  go  away  at  four  o'clock. 

The  motion  was  put  to  a  vote  and  carried,  and  there  was  a 
recess  of  the  Joint  Commission. 

After  the  separate  sessions  were  had  the  Joint  Commission 
was  called  to  order  by  the  Chairman,  Bishop  Cranston. 

Charles  M.  Stuart :  A  matter  of  privilege  of  the  house,  be- 
fore you  take  up  any  other  matters.  You  appointed  a  commit- 
tee to  draft  a  statement  to  our  Churches  concerning  the  con- 
ditions of  the  country  and  of  the  world.  If  you  hear  it  now, 
the  report  will  have  satisfactory  treatment.  If  you  postpone 
it  until  the  hurried  moments  of  adjournment,  it  will  not  be 
properly  considered. 

The  reading  of  the  report  was  called  for,  and  it  was  read  by 
Dr.  Stuart,  as  follows: 

The  members  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification  of  American 
Methodism,  in  session  at  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  unite  in  affectionate  greetings  to 
the  Methodists  of  America.  In  view  of  war  conditions  they  deem  it  ex- 
pedient to  issue  at  this  time  a  call  to  renewed  faith  in  the  integrity  and 
unselfishness  of  the  motives  which  determine  our  national  participation  in 
the  world  struggle.  We  are  deeply  sensible  of  the  heavy  and  anxious 
hours  waiting  upon  our  people  the  country  over.  Even  while  this  message 
is  being  considered,  the  word  which  reaches  us  from  the  front  adds  to 
our  burden  of  concern  and  anxiety.  On  the  other  hand,  we  cannot  be 
unmindful  of  the  springs  of  comfort  and  reassurance  developed  by  the 
war  itself. 

A  people  charged  with  being  inordinately  self-indulgent  has  suddenly 
disclosed  a  shining  capacity  for  hardihood  and  sacrificial  service;  and  a 
nation  regarded  by  other  nations  as  chiefly  devoted  to  sordid  greed  for 
wealth  has  shown  itself  competent  for  a  degree  of  self-sacrifice  in  behalf 
of  righteous  principle  all  too  rare  in  the  history  of  international  relation- 
ships. Moreover,  there  is  immeasurable  comfort  in  the  obvious  provi- 
dences which  brought  us  into  this  war.  We  have  not  been  trained  to 
war;  we  have  no  liking  for  war,  nor  did  we  seek  it.  But  we  are  now  in 
war  and  will  remain  so  until,  and  in  order  that,  humanity  may  have  a 
reasonable  hope  that  this  war  will  end  war  forever. 

It  is  a  matter  of  supreme  and  universal  concern,  for  which  we  are 
asked  to  make  sacrifice.  It  is  for  nothing  less  than  to  secure  for  all  God's 
children  under  the  impartial  heavens  a  decent  world  in  which  to  live  and 
be  happy.  Surely  for  such  an  end  we  should  not  count  even  our  lives 
dear  unto  ourselves.  And  it  is  for  this  that  our  sons  are  in  camp  and 
field  together  and  with  high  and  united  heart  march  to  meet  the  shock 
of  war — yielding,  if  necessary,  their  hope  of  serene  age  and  of  domestic 
bliss.  It  is  for  this  our  daughters  give  themselves  in  tender  and  beautiful 
ministry  of  mercy  and  healing  with  never  a  thought  of  personal  comfort 
or  advantage.  It  is  for  this  that  mothers  and  fathers,  wives  and  sweet- 
hearts are  content  to  give  that  which  really  makes  life  for  them,  and  in 


240    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

many,  many  cases  to  accept  the  burden  of  a  lifetime's  loneliness  and  grief. 
Let  us  hearten  ourselves  in  the  thought  of  God's  unfailing  care  for  the 
work  we  are  trying  to  do,  in  the  assurance  that  the  divine  purpose  for  the 
welfare  of  the  race  can  never  be  permanently  thwarted,  in  the  happy  per- 
suasion of  life  hereafter  with  Him  and  with  those  we  love  and  lose,  in 
the  commanding  call  to  instant  and  imperial  work  and  sacrifice,  in  a  just 
pride  in  our  country's  response  to  the  world's  need  and  cry,  and  in  our 
fellowship  with  the  humane  and  forward-looking  nations  of  the  earth  in 
a  common  desire  to  establish  and  promote  a  rule  of  peace  and  universal 
good  will. 

And  let  us  pray — pray  with  or  without  articulate  form,  pray  in  the 
spirit,  pray  with  righteous  hands  and  without  ceasing,  pray  day  and  night 
to  God  exalted  in  holiness  that  right  shall  triumph  and  his  kingdom  come 
on  earth  as  it  is  in  heaven. 

Let  us  work,  too — work  that  our  Church  and  all  Churches  may  prove 
themselves  equal  to  their  high  task,  not  only  of  mediating  comfort  to  the 
weary  and  heavy-laden,  but  also  in  conserving  the  spiritual  results  of  the 
war  for  the  speedy  realization  of  a  world-wide  society  whose  foundations 
and  informing  spirit  are  righteousness,  justice,  peace,  and  brotherly  love. 
Our  own  Church  will  have  but  little  help  to  offer  if,  without  abating  in 
any  degree  her  patriotic  work,  she  does  not  redouble  all  her  existing  evan- 
gelistic and  philanthropic  enterprises. 

We  urge  earnestly  and  insistently  the  heartiest  support  of  all  move- 
ments and  methods  projected  by  our  government  for  the  prosecution  of 
the  war.  Let  us  further  generously  the  interests  of  the  Red  Cross,  the 
Christian  Association  work,  the  war  activities  of  our  denominational  coun- 
cil, and  the  purchase  of  liberty  bonds  and  of  war  thrift  stamps.  Let  us 
also  lend  our  influence  in  promoting  labor  and  industrial  conditions  to 
facilitate  production  of  food  and  munitions,  and  in  fostering  a  patriotic 
fervor  which  will  aid  enlistment.  And  let  us  at  all  times  and  everywhere 
and  by  every  means  at  our  disposal  display  an  open  and  unaffected  loyalty 
to  the  aims  and  motives  of  our  own  nation  and  of  allied  nations,  especially 
as  voiced  in  the  memorable  deliverances  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States. 

Above  all,  let  us  have  faith  in  God,  faith  in  the  justice  of  our  cause, 
faith  in  our  mission  to  the  race,  faith  in  the  good  will  of  our  allies,  faith 
in  the  ultimate  triumph  of  truth  and  goodness ;  and  in  the  strength  of  that 
faith  let  us  have  courage  and  hope  in  the  presence  of  all  discouragements 
and  a  cheerful  confidence  that  out  of  the  terrible  conflict  shall  come  a 
new  heaven  and  a  new  earth,  a  new  and  better  brotherhood  of  man,  a 
new  and  better  vision  of  God. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  hesitate  to  offer  even  a  verbal  suggestion, 
but  will  Dr.  Stuart  allow  this  verbal  suggestion?  In  the  early 
part  of  his  paper  there  is  a  reference  to  sacrifices  apparent  and 
sacrifices  of  various  individuals,  but  I  did  not  hear  any  mention 
of  one  of  the  most  touching  and  pathetic  scenes  that  is  going  on 
in  the  world  to-day  in  the  way  of  wives  and  sweethearts  giving 
up  their  husbands  and  their  beloved. 

Charles  M.  Stuart.    I  will  accept  that. 

Bishop  McDowell :  Another  word :  I  want  to  put  our  Allies 
in  with  us  whenever  we  speak  of  aims  and  purposes,  for  I 
want  them  to  know  that  we  are  absolutely  with  them. 

Bishop  Denny :  I  listened  to  that  paper  with  very  great 
appreciation  and  approval.  One  of  the  things  that  has  im- 
pressed me  very  greatly  in  connection  with  this  whole  terrible 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


241 


contest  may  be  only  to  some  extent  my  personal  views,  and 
yet  it  is  a  matter  of  very  strong  pressure  to  me.  Dr.  Stuart 
read  those  clauses  pointing  out  what  it  was  that  different  mem- 
bers of  the  community  were  suffering  and  willing  to  die  for; 
but  when  I  think  of  these  boys  ready  to  give  up  the  possibility 
of  a  serene  old  age,  in  addition  to  the  natural  desire  for  earthly 
immortality,  it  comes  to  me  with  the  power  that  scarcely  any- 
thing else  does.  I  take  it  that  you  feel  as  I  feel.  It  would  not 
be  a  difficult  thing  to  shoulder  a  gun  and  go  out  in  the  front  line 
and  fall.  But  I  have  children.  But  here  is  a  boy  who  has  no 
children.  He  goes  out,  and  when  he  dies  down  with  him  goes 
all  the  possibility  of  a  serene  old  age  and  those  who  would 
keep  his  name  and  faith  alive  afterwards.  If  the  committee 
would  consider — I  would  not  offer  it  as  an  amendment,  but  I 
would  offer  a  word,  a  suggested  amendment  as  follows:  "It 
is  for  this  that  our  boys  are  willing  to  give  up  all  possibilities 
of  a  serene  old  age  and  the  natural,  if  not  universal,  desire  for 
earthly  immortality." 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston) :  Dr.  Stuart  will  get  that. 

Bishop  McDowell:  I  move  the  adoption  of  the  document  as 
prepared. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  In  our  former  proceedings  we  have  had  a 
statement  of  the  numbers  of  our  sons  and  grandsons  who  are 
in  the  army.  It  would  be  interesting  if  we  could  know  how 
many  of  our  sons  are  on  the  other  side.  I  would  like  to  know 
how  many  have  sons  on  the  other  side. 

Thirty-four  were  counted  up. 

E.  W.  Hines:  I  have  not  spoken  during  the  meeting,  so  I 
shall  ask  the  privilege  of  reading  a  short  poem,  written  by  a 
Kentucky  boy,  which  I  think  is  peculiarly  appropriate  here  in 
this  connection.  It  is  very  brief  and  no  doubt  some  of  you  are 
familiar  with  it.    It  is  entitled 

"The  Blue  and  the  Gray." 

Here's  to  the  Bine  of  the  wind-swept  North 

When  we  meet  on  the  plains  of  France; 
May  the  spirit  of  Grant  be  with  you  all 

A;  the  sons  of  the  North  advance! 

And  here's  to  the  Gray  of  the  sun-kissed  South 

When  we  meet  on  the  plains  of  France; 
May  th»  spirit  of  Lee  be  with  you  all 

As  tin  sons  of  the  South  advance ! 

And  here's  to  the  Blue  and  the  Gray  as  one 

When  we  meet  on  the  plains  of  France; 
May  the  Spirit  of  God  be  with  you  all 

As  the  soxs  of  the  flag  advance ! 

The  Chairman  (Bis>op  Cranston)  :  In  the  blood  of  our  sons 
may  there  be  forgotten  forever  the  jealousies  and  antagonisms 
that  we  have  called  the  sections  of  the  United  States. 
16 


242    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

Frank  M.  Thomas:  May  I  say  a  word?  I  happen  to  be  the 
senior  member  of  this  Commission,  in  point  of  service,  from  our 
Church,  and  I  want  to  say  frankly  that  nothing  has  pained  me 
more  than  the  fact  that  we  have  been  unable  before  the  as- 
sembling of  our  General  Conference  to  report  a  plan  that  could 
be  approved  by  that  body.  I  wish  to  say  personally,  and  I  think 
I  represent  every  man  on  both  sides — I  think  up  to  the  limit 
of  intellectual  and  spiritual  strength  we  have  tried  to  find  the 
very  best  way  of  bringing  about  a  solution  of  this  problem.  I 
think  every  man  on  both  Commissions  has  done  his  best.  I 
think  we  have  been  stopped  for  the  present  by  the  limitation  of 
human  lives,  and  perhaps  through  the  providence  of  God;  but 
I  was  awakened  this  morning  by  a  strange  feeling  of  peace  in 
my  soul.  I  laid  awake  part  of  the  night  worrying  over  con- 
ditions. I  seemed  to  feel  a  touch  of  the  spirit  that  some  day 
it  would  be  all  right.  I  am  satisfied  that  it  was  merely  the 
heart  of  American  Methodism,  and  that  finally  there  would  be 
no  trouble.  I  think  we  are  one.  I  think  our  two  great  Churches 
are  one  in  spirit.  I  heard  a  great  preacher  once  say  that  it  was 
a  great  deprivation  to  Moses  when  he  came  to  the  river  Jordan 
and  looked  across  at  the  promised  land  that  he  had  longed  to 
enter  and  was  forbidden,  and  he  went  his  way  lonely  up  the 
mountain;  and  yet  God  had  something  better,  for  many  years 
afterwards  he  stood  in  the  promised  land  of  the  Redeemer  on 
the  Mount  of  Transfiguration.  I  am  certain  that  that  transfigura- 
tion is  to  come  some  day  to  American  Methodism,  and  I  trust 
we  shall  not  lose  heart,  but  that  we  shall  still  pray  and  still  toil 
toward  that  glorious  end. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  There  remains  one  mat- 
ter of  business  that  we  should  take  care  of,  and  I  refer  to  it 
now  lest  it  be  forgotten.  In  response  to  the  request  from  the 
Methodist  Epi-copal  Church,  South,  the  Commission  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  taken  action  which  the  Secre- 
tary has  in  his  hand  and  will  present. 

Secretary  Abram  W.  Harris:  There  are  two  mitters  to  be 
reported.    These  resolutions  have  been  adopted : 

Resohed,  That  we  approve  the  report  tentatively  accepted  by  the  Joint 
Commission  with  such  modification  as  further  joint  consideration  of  the 

Commission  may  make  advisable. 

Resohed,  That  we  unite  with  the  Commission  of  the  Church,  South, 
in  reporting  to  the  General  Conference  those  matte's  upon  which  agree- 
ment has  been  reached  tentatively,  with  a  statement  of  those  matters  upon 
which  we  have  not  agreed  and  which  are  parts  of  the  same.  We  regard 
the  accomplishment  already  reached  as  abundantly  justifying  the  existence 
and  continuance  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unfkation  and  a  persistent 
hope  of  a  final  successful  outcome  of  our  deliberations.  We  agree  to  the 
principle  of  the  two  reports  tentatively  app'Oved,  as  they  have  been 
amended,  subject  to  such  further  amendment  as  may  be  made  after  due 
consideration. 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


243 


Bishop  Mouzon:  I  am  not  quite  sure  just  how  much  that 
means.  I  should  like  for  the  Secretary  of  the  Southern  Com- 
mission to  read  to  you  the  very  words  of  the  resolution  adopted 
by  the  Southern  Commission  covering  the  report  of  the  Commit- 
tee on  Conferences  and  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Judi- 
cial Council.  I  think  we  are  together,  but  I  am  not  quite  sure 
whether  we  are  or  not.  I  would  like  to  know  whether  we  are 
exactly  together. 

Frank  M.  Thomas:  I  was  asked  to  report  that  we  had  taken 
favorable  action  on  both  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Con- 
ferences and  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Judicial  Council. 

Bishop  Mouzon:  I  beg  your  pardon,  but  the  exact  resolution 
was  written  out  by  myself  and  placed  in  your  hands. 

Bishop  McDowell :  It  seems  to  us  that  this  particular  reso- 
lution— we  do  not  object  to  the  form  of  it  at  all,  but  it  seems  to 
us  that  it  was  a  little  general,  just  as  ours  was. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  I  am  sorry  I  have  not  another  copy.  Doubt- 
less the  Secretary  will  find  the  original  resolution,  but  I  think 
I  can  give  it  substantially.  I  do  not  right  now  recall  the  exact 
words,  but  possibly  I  will  when  I  begin.    I  think  it  was  this: 

Resolved,  That  we  say  to  our  brethren  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  that  we  accept  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Conferences  and 
the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Judicial  Council  as  amended  and  tenta- 
tively adopted  by  the  Joint  Commission,  subject  to  minor  amendments 
which  will  in  no  wise  affect  the  principles  involved. 

Frank  M.  Thomas :  I  am  sorry,  but  I  don't  remember  to  have 
seen  it. 

Bishop  McDowell:  We  had  this  statement  the  Secretary  just 
read  to  the  meeting,  and  not  that  other  statement. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  I  think  we  are  together,  and  I  would  be  glad 
to  know  that  we  are  together  at  these  two  points. 

Bishop  McDowell:  We  were  together.  We  were  pretty  near 
of  a  mind  to  adopt  the  exact  form  that  it  was  presented  in. 
Then  it  was  thought  that  that  opened  the  door  for  some  slight 
misunderstanding  that  we  did  not  want  to  have.  It  will  be  re- 
membered the  other  day  when  we  were  considering  a  question 
of  the  Six  Regional  Conferences  according  to  the  outline  I 
submitted  that  two  or  three  amendments  proposed  were  voted 
down.  Then,  on  the  roll  call,  the  outline  as  presented  re- 
ceived a  majority  of  the  Joint  Commission.  It  did  not  re- 
ceive a  majority  of  the  Commission  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church.  It  received  a  majority  of  the  Joint  Commission. 
It  will  be  understood  also  that  the  adoption,  or  at  least  the  ac- 
ceptance, of  some  of  the  matters  upon  which  we  have  already 
acted  was  related  to  and  largely  conditioned  upon — by  formal 
action  taken  at  Traverse  City — a  completed  scheme,  and  that 
until  the  scheme  is  completed  amendments  and  modifications 


244    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

are  possible  and  clearly  within  the  right  of  the  Commission. 
Now,  specifically  and  concretely,  in  order  that  there  may  be 
no  misunderstanding  of  what  is  meant,  among  other  things, 
by  the  resolution  just  reported  to  you  is  that  we  have  taken 
favorable  action  upon  this  report,  that  the  reports  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Conferences  and  Judicial  Council  have  been  tenta- 
tively accepted  and  tentatively  approved,  but  subject  also  to 
such  further  amendments  as  further  consideration  may  make 
advisable.  We  accept  fully  the  principle  of  the  Regional  Con- 
ference, of  course.  We  do  not  regard  the  question  of  the  num- 
ber or  boundaries  as  settled.  I  want  to  make  it  clearly  under- 
stood. 

Bishop  Mouzon:  Thank  you. 

Bishop  McDowell:  I  am  glad  to  clear  this  matter  up,  be- 
cause nobody  on  either  side  of  the  fence — and  if  there  is  a 
fence  I  cannot  discover  it,  and  if  there  is  a  fence  it  is  in  bad 
order — no  one  wants  to  have  any  misunderstanding  of  any 
statement  that  is  made.  If  that  is  clear,  all  right ;  if  not,  I  will 
elaborate. 

Bishop  Denny:  I  think  I  ought  to  say  that  I  noticed,  at  the 
time  the  roll  was  called  on  the  motion  to  adopt  the  report  of 
the  Committee  on  Conferences,  that  a  majority  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  voted  against  the  adoption  of  that  re- 
port. But  it  didn't  seem  to  me  that  the  initiative  was  in  the 
Chair  to  call  attention  to  that  fact  unless  there  should  be  a  call 
for  a  vote  by  Commissions.  Then  I  understood  that  it  was  a 
Joint  Commission  vote ;  but  I  was  ready,  as  I  told  somebody 
who  came  to  me  in  the  chair  at  the  time,  to  announce  at  once 
that  the  motion  was  lost  provided  anybody  from  the  floor 
called  attention  to  the  demand  of  a  vote  by  Commissions.  It 
didn't  seem  to  me  to  be  a  delicate  or  even  a  legal  matter  for  the 
Chair  to  call  attention  to  it,  and  it  was  not  taken  up  by  any 
member  of  the  Commission  from  the  floor.  It  was  in  my  mind 
and  I  was  ready  to  act,  but  there  was  no  call  for  an  action. 

Bishop  McDowell :  Your  conduct  was  correct  in  the  premises, 
but  in  view  of  the  fact,  as  we  supposed,  that  we  were  not  vot- 
ing upon  it  finally  no  attention  was  called  to  it.  Of  course,  we 
noticed  it  as  well  as  anybody. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  In  order  that  we  may  be  fully  understood, 
let  me  add  this  further  word:  The  Commission  of  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  South,  has  voted  to  accept  the  report  of 
the  Committee  on  Conferences  and  the  report  of  the  Commit- 
tee on  Judicial  Council.  When  we  added  "subject  to  minor 
amendments  which  in  no  wise  affect  the  principles  involved" 
we  meant  everything  that  seems  to  say.  We  accept  the  Regional 
Conferences,  the  six  Conferences  as  there  outlined.  If  you 
ask  what  is  meant  by  "minor  amendments,"  let  me  instance  the 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


245 


suggestion  that  was  made  that  a  clearer  and  fuller  statement 
of  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  Judicial  Council  might  be  ad- 
visable, and  let  me  also  instance  the  fact  that  the  question  had 
been  opened  touching  the  eligibility  of  women  to  membership 
in  the  General  Conference. 

Frank  M.  Thomas:  The  Pandora's  box. 

Bishop  Mouzon:  So  we  say  "subject  to  such  minor  amend- 
ments as  in  no  wise  affect  the  principles  involved."  I,  of  course, 
understand  that  it  is  not  a  completed  system  that  we  have  been 
working  at. 

Bishop  McDowell :  Allow  me  to  ask  for  clearness. 
Bishop  Mouzon :  If  I  have  not  made  myself  clear,  assist  me. 
Bishop  McDowell:  You  stated  frankly  a  moment  ago  that 
you  had  accepted  the  six  Regional  Conferences. 
Bishop  Mouzon:  Yes. 

Bishop  McDowell :  And  then  followed  the  statement  about 
minor  amendments.  Are  we  to  understand  that  you  would 
regard  that  number  six  now  as  a  fixed  number,  which  could 
not  be  amended  by  increasing  it  to  eight  or  ten  or  by  decreasing 
it  to  four  or  three  ? 

Bishop  Mouzon:  I  am  hardly  prepared  to  answer  that  ques- 
tion. I  should  not  like  to  assume  responsibility  for  answering 
that  question.  We  could  have  wished  that  our  brethren  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  might  have  seen  their  way  clear 
to  agree  to  six.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  Southern  Commis- 
sioners would  agree  to  a  larger  number  than  six. 

Bishop  McDowell:  The  point  is,  in  our  Church,  that  we  do 
not  regard  that  subject  as  a  closed  subject;  but  we  regard  our- 
selves as  free  to  vote,  if  our  judgment  confirms,  in  favor  of 
six  or  eight,  or  three  or  four. 

Bishop  Mouzon:  Of  course  we  mean  that  we  have  accepted 
the  six.  We  do  not  mean  that  the  whole  matter  is  closed  up 
and  shall  not  be  opened,  but  we  have  accepted  the  six. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston) :  Is  there  any  other  busi- 
ness? 

Bishop  Leete:  If  the  members  of  the  Southern  Commission 
have  accepted  more  than  we  have,  I  am  sure  we  are  delighted 
to  let  them  have  the  honor.  We  may  at  the  same  time  emulate 
their  example  with  reference  to  readiness  to  accept  every- 
thing that  comes.  What  I  rose  for  was  to  move  a  vote  of 
thanks  to  the  people  who  have  entertained  us  while  we  have 
been  here  and  to  the  persons  who  arranged  for  the  reception 
and  for  any  others  who  have  extended  courtesies.  I  regret  that 
I  was  not  able  to  write  the  motion,  but  I  am  sure  the  Secre- 
taries will  phrase  it  in  a  proper  way,  and  I  move  that  the  Secre- 
taries be  requested  to  make  due  acknowledgment  of  the  courte- 
sies and  submit  to  the  proper  persons. 


246    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

Bishop  Hamilton:  Would  it  not  be  wise  to  have  this  other 
report  from  the  committee  to-day,  so  that  we  could  all  know 
what  it  was? 

A.  J.  Lamar:  We  have  not  yet  voted  on  that  resolution  of 
thanks. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  want  to  amend  the  motion  for  the  reso- 
lution of  thanks  by  a  motion  to  instruct  the  Secretary  to  recom- 
pense the  janitor  of  this  church  for  the  extra  work  that  we  have 
occasioned  him. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  I  intended  to  offer  that  as  a  resolution,  but  I 
would  rather  that  it  be  a  little  more  definite. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  withdraw  my  motion  then. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  motion  of  Bishop  Leete  about  thanks 
to  the  persons  who  extended  the  courtesies  was  unanimously 
carried. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  Now  I  move  that  the  janitor  of  this  church, 
to  whom  we  have  given  a  good  deal  of  trouble,  be  given  $25, 
to  be  equally  divided  between  the  two  Commissions. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

John  F.  Goucher:  Before  we  adjourn  it  is  perhaps  desirable 
to  make  some  arrangements  for  another  meeting.  We  cannot 
exactly  say  when.  Might  we  not  leave  that  to  the  Chairmen 
and  Secretaries,  as  we  have  done  heretofore? 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  so  move. 

The  motion  was  seconded  by  Rev.  John  F.  Goucher  and, 
being  put  to  a  vote,  was  carried. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston):  The  official  tenure  of  one 
of  the  Chairmen  expires  with  this  meeting,  and  we  are  about 
to  disband  as  a  body,  not  to  come  together  again  just  in  this 
same  constituency.  I  hear  it  rumored  that  some  of  these  mem- 
bers are  likely  to  change  their  relations  to  the  Church  or  to 
the  ministry. 

Bishop  McDowell :  Some  to  become  effective  and  some  non- 
effective. 

Bishop  Cranston :  Yes,  some  of  us  may  have  to  retire.  It  will 
be  a  great  joy  all  the  days  of  my  life  to  have  been  associated 
with  the  members  of  the  Commission  of  the  Church,  South.  I 
sometimes  wish  I  could  tell  you  just  what  you  ought  to  do  and 
have  you  do  just  what  I  want,  but  I  do  not  wish  it  always,  be- 
cause I  know  that  you  have  sound  judgment  and  you  know  your 
conditions  better  than  I  can  know  them. 

Bishop  Denny :  Come  down  and  spend  some  time  with  us.  I 
do  not  like  to  say  good-by.  I  want  to  see  you  all  again  to- 
gether. I  don't  want  to  come  here  and  find  a  lot  of  new  faces 
and  persons  who  have  to  be  broken  in  and  who  cannot  be  as 
skillful  in  the  prosecution  of  the  work  as  you  are.    It  will  not 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


247 


be  pleasant  for  us,  but  of  course  we  can  get  used  to  it.  God 
bless  you  and  help  you  in  all  the  work  of  your  Church. 

John  F.  Goucher:  If  there  is  a  new  Chairman  or  Chairmen, 
that  would  affect  this  motion. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  If  there  is  a  new  Chair- 
man or  Chairmen  or  new  Secretary  or  Secretaries,  it  would  be 
subject  to  the  Chairmen  and  Secretaries  and  the  Commissions 
as  they  may  then  be  constituted. 

John  F.  Goucher:  That  is  what  I  meant. 

Bishop  McDowell :  Has  any  provision  been  made  or  any  plan 
for  preparing  the  address? 

C.  M.  Bishop :  To  the  general  public  or  the  General  Confer- 
ences ?  / 

Bishop  McDowell:  We  have  made  a  report  heretofore  to  the 
Church  as  a  whole,  and  I  suppose  the  reports  to  the  General 
Conference  will  be  made. 

Bishop  Denny:  Let  me  save  the  blushes  of  our  Secretary  by 
saying  that  he  was  appointed  chairman  of  a  committee  to  pre- 
pare a  report  to  our  General  Conference,  and  should  the  Joint 
Commission  desire  a  report  to  be  issued  such  as  we  have  been 
accustomed  to,  then  this  committee  of  which  Dr.  Thomas  is 
chairman  could  represent  us.  That  committee  is  Dr.  Thomas, 
Mr.  Maddin,  Dr.  Chappell,  and  Dr.  Moore,  but  it  was  also  to  be 
increased  to  such  a  number  as  you  brethren  desired  to  have  if 
you  desired  to  have  more. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  move  that  our  Secretary  (Dr.  Harris),  Dr. 
Van  Cleve,  and  Dr.  Blake  be  a  similar  committee  for  our  Com- 
mission. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  move  that  Bishop  McDowell,  Dr.  Gouch- 
er, and  Dr.  Downey,  with  Secretary  Harris,  be  the  Com- 
mittee.   They  are  all  in  the  East  together. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  accept  the  amendment. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

Edgar  Blake:  There  is  another  matter  I  would  like  to  bring 
up.  We  have  taken  no  joint  action  as  to  what  we  shall  report 
to  our  respective  General  Conferences.  It  seems  to  me  it  would 
be  desirable  if  we  could  take  action  as  a  Joint  Commission,  not 
as  to  the  exact  form  but  as  to  a  joint  report,  so  that  we  can  re- 
port similarly  to  our  respective  bodies.  I  think  nothing  has 
been  done  by  the  Joint  Commission  looking  toward  a  continuance 
of  the  negotiations.  I  would  move,  to  test  the  sentiment  of  the 
Joint  Commission,  that  we  give  to  our  respective  General  Con- 
ferences a  statement  of  those  items  tentatively  accepted,  to- 
gether with  a  statement  of  those  items  upon  which  we  have  not 
agreed  and  that  we  request  a  continuance  of  the  Joint  Com- 


248    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

mission.  I  would  like  to  see  that  go  through  the  Joint  Com- 
mission. 

Frank  M.  Thomas :  I  may  be  mistaken,  but  I  think  Dr.  Blake 
is  not  in  form  as  to  our  method  in  the  Church,  South,  with  ref- 
erence to  reporting  to  the  General  Conference.  We  are  in- 
structed by  the  Church  for  the  Commission  to  make  a  special 
report  to  the  General  Conference.  We  would  be  glad  to  have 
the  help  of  any  committee,  but  it  is  a  special  report  of  the  Com- 
mission itself  to  the  General  Conference. 

Bishop  McDowell:  There  are  two  matters  before  us.  The 
motion  of  Dr.  Blake  is  another  matter. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  I  didn't  understand  there 
was  any  other  matter.  The  first  is  your  official  report  to  your 
General  Conference. 

Secretary  Thomas :  Yes. 

Bishop  McDowell:  Then  the  committee  that  makes  that  re- 
port cooperates  with  a  similar  committee  of  the  other  Commis- 
sion in  that  public  statement,  which  is  another  matter. 

Frank  M.  Thomas :  I  understand  your  statement. 

Bishop  McDowell:  Now,  this  matter  of  Dr.  Blake's  is  an- 
other matter  and  is  an  important  one. 

Edgar  Blake :  Yes,  that  is  really  important. 

Secretary  Thomas :  W e  have  already  taken  action  on  that. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  didn't  understand  that  you  had,  but  if  you 
have  I  will  withdraw  it. 

Bishop  McDowell :  That  is  an  expression  of  the  Joint  Com- 
mission in  favor  of  a  continuance. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Is  there  anything  further 
to  be  said? 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  resolution  of  Dr.  Blake  was  agreed  to. 

Bishop  McDowell :  We  would  all  have  been  glad  to  have 
reached  a  fuller  agreement  on  many  matters.  In  conversation 
the  other  day  with  Bishop  Lambuth  and  in  conversation  with 
Dr.  Prettyman,  the  Chaplain  of  the  United  States  Senate,  and 
in  conversation  with  one  or  two  others,  some  of  them  from  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  some  from  our  own 
Church,  this  suggestion  has  arisen  and  I  present  it  here — name- 
ly, that  as  a  part  of  our  effort  at  unification  this  Joint  Commis- 
sion on  Unification  as  it  now  exists,  and  as  I  trust  it  may  exist 
after  the  meeting  of  your  General  Conference,  shall  be  free  to 
be  a  Committee  on  Cooperation  in  this  common  enterprise  of 
the  two  Churches  of  Jesus  Christ  in  the  country  and  the  world, 
in  its  outstanding  opportunity  to  demonstrate  itself  in  the  Mis- 
sionary Centenary,  but  which  cooperation  may  possibly  be  the 
very  means  by  which  we  may  get  together.  It  seems  to  me 
that  by  working  together  we  shall  come  together  more  rapidly 
than  by  the  formal  and  laborious  effort  to  adjust  ourselves;  and 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


249 


I  simply  make  the  suggestion,  without  any  motion  being  re- 
quired, that  the  Commission  itself  may  have  before  it  not  the 
creation  of  some  other  Committee  on  Cooperation,  but  that  this 
committee  shall  be  free  to  consider  itself  a  Committee  on  Co- 
operation in  the  enterprises  that  are  common  to  us. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  I  am  glad  that  Bishop  McDowell  has  made 
the  remarks  which  he  has  just  now  made.  I  do  not  know  that 
we  can  go  farther  or  that  we  have  any  authority  to  go  any  far- 
ther than  Bishop  McDowell's  suggestion  would  carry  us.  I 
desire,  however,  in  addition  to  what  he  has  said,  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  Commission  to  the  unusual  and  remarkable 
work  of  cooperation  which  is  going  on  in  Canada  between  the 
Presbyterian  Church  and  the  Congregational  Church  and  the 
Methodist  Church  of  Canada.  As  everyone  knows,  for  a  num- 
ber of  years  now  the  unification  of  those  three  Churches  has 
been  pending.  That  movement  has  been  halted  for  a  time,  be- 
cause a  small  minority  and  an  insistent  minority  in  one  of  the 
three  Churches  involved  declared  that  if  the  proposed  union 
should  take  place  they  would  claim  all  the  church  property. 
So  the  movement  toward  union  has  been  halted  for  a  while. 
The  large  majority  of  the  three  Churches  has  already  voted  in 
favor  of  that  most  unusual  union  which  has  been  proposed.  Of 
course,  everyone  knows  that  the  Methodist  union  took  place 
a  good  while  back  in  Canada.  They  have  drawn  up  a  plan  of 
cooperation,  and  that  plan  of  cooperation  is  being  put  in  prac- 
tice in  Canada  and  they  are  succeeding  remarkably  well.  I 
have  a  letter  from  Superintendent  Chown  in  which  is  this  sen- 
tence: "In  the  province  of  Alberta,  for  instance,  where  I  have 
resided  through  a  cooperative  committee  for  six  years  past, 
there  are  only  15  points,  out  of  582  Methodist  preaching  places, 
where  there  are  now  churches  of  both  denominations."  That 
is  most  remarkable.  I  could  wish  that,  while  for  a  time  being 
this  movement  halts,  we  might  consider  ourselves  called  upon 
to  put  on  foot  a  movement  which  would  result  in  Methodist  co- 
operation all  over  the  United  States,  and  especially  where  this  co- 
operation is  needed  in  the  border  and  in  the  South  and  in  the 
Northwest.  I  am  glad  you  made  the  suggestion.  I  hope  that 
something  very  concrete  may  come  out  of  it,  and  that  we  may 
be  enabled  to  inaugurate  a  movement  that  will  bring  about  co- 
operation.   Our  plan  of  federation  did  not  succeed. 

Bishop  McDowell:  How  could  it? 

Bishop  Mouzon:  It  did  not  succeed  because  we  had  to  have 
a  quarrel  before  we  got  started.  Instead  of  planning  a  move- 
ment which  calls  for  a  quarrel  before  we  can  do  anything,  let  us 
plan  for  a  movement  that  calls  for  brotherly  love  before  doing 
anything  and  a  desire  of  local  congregations  to  get  together 
before  you  can  do  anything.    I  happen  to  know  that  in  places 


250    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

both  in  the  Northwest  and  the  Southwest  there  are  churches 
that  would  have  been  merged  if  it  had  not  been  for  district 
superintendents  and  presiding  elders  and  bishops.  I  plead  for 
a  more  thorough  cooperation  while  we  are  planning  for  that 
good  day  when  in  God's  providence  there  shall  be  one  Meth- 
odism in  America. 

M.  L.  Walton:  About  an  inquiry:  There  was  a  committee 
appointed  a  moment  ago  to  prepare  a  statement  that  is  to  be 
published  in  the  Advocates.  There  are  some  of  us  here  who 
would  like  to  know  whether  we  are  at  liberty  to  publish  some 
things  next  week  before  that  statement  comes,  or  whether  you 
expect  us  to  make  no  statement  in  the  press  until  this  com- 
mittee has  reported. 

C.  M.  Bishop:  I  move  that  they  be  given  that  liberty. 

Frank  M.  Thomas :  I  second  the  motion. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  We  provided  for  that  at  Savannah. 

J.  H.  Reynolds :  I  move  to  amend,  if  it  is  needed,  that  we 
throw  all  papers  and  documents,  including  the  speeches,  open 
to  the  press. 

Bishop  Leete  seconded  the  motion. 

C.  M.  Bishop :  I  will  accept  that. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  motion  was  adopted. 

Abram  W.  Harris :  I  move  that  Dr.  Ivey,  Dr.  Joy,  and  Dr. 
Wallace  be  appointed  a  committee  to  prepare  a  statement  to  be 
sent  to  both  Churches. 

The  motion  was  seconded. 

J.  F.  Goucher:  As  an  official  or  semiofficial  paper. 

Abram  W.  Harris:  I  accept  that. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  motion  was  carried. 

Abram  W.  Harris :  Next,  I  want  to  know  whether  it  would 
meet  your  approval  to  have  the  patriotic  utterances  of  this 
afternoon  given  to  the  Associated  Press.  I  think  they  ought 
to  go  out,  and  I  so  move. 

The  motion  was  seconded  by  Dr.  Bishop  and,  being  put  to 
a  vote,  was  carried. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  The  arrangement  at  Savannah  by  which  the 
Secretaries  were  to  complete  a  statement  to  be  furnished  in 
pamphlet  form  and  sent  all  over  the  country  was  a  very  ex- 
cellent one  and  gave  very  great  satisfaction  to  the  Church.  I 
hope  that  can  be  done  again. 

Bishop  McDowell :  We  appointed  a  Committee  on  Publicity. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  That  is  very  different  from  what  we  had  at 
Savannah. 

Frank  M.  Thomas :  It  is  going  to  be  impossible  for  the  com- 
mittees to  do  the  work  you  request.  It  is  all  right  for  those 
three  editors  to  prepare  a  statement  for  the  Church  press,  but 
the  committee  appointed  to  prepare  a  report  to  the  General  Con- 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


251 


ference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  will  have  all 
that  it  can  do  between  now  and  the  assembling  of  that  body. 

David  G.  Downey:  I  move  that  the  Secretaries  prepare  and 
have  printed  the  minutes  and  what  we  have  agreed  on  as  to 
this  Constitution  as  on  previous  occasions. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  I  want  to  ask  this  question:  A  vast  number 
of  our  people  North  and  South  would  like  to  know  everything 
that  this  convention  has  done.  Would  this  Commission  have  any 
objection  to  allowing  the  Publishing  Agents  of  the  two  Churches 
to  combine  in  one  volume  all  the  proceedings  of  this  Joint  Com- 
mission at  Baltimore,  Traverse  City,  Savannah,  and  St.  Louis? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  That  is  covered  by  the 
resolution  offered  by  Dr.  Reynolds. 

Bishop  Mouzon:  It  would  be  too  big. 

Bishop  McDowell:  You  had  better  wait  until  the  price  of 
paper  goes  down. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Under  the  resolution  of 
Dr-  Reynolds  that  is  a  matter  that  the  Agents  can  settle  be- 
tween themselves. 

A.  J.  Lamar :  Then  I  think  I  will  take  it  up  right  away. 

David  G.  Downey:  I  think  we  can  arrange  it. 

T.  N.  Ivey:  A  question  of  privilege.  You  carried  a  motion 
a  few  minutes  ago  and  a  committee  of  three  was  appointed  to 
do  a  work  which  that  committee  is  not  able  to  do.  That  com- 
mittee, in  order  to  do  its  work,  must  have  the  papers  of  the 
Secretary.  It  is  impossible  for  that  committee  in  the  time  al- 
lotted to  it  to  get  that  matter.  I  don't  see  why  this  committee, 
which  has  already  been  appointed  and  which  did  its  work  so 
nicely  at  Savannah,  should  not  do  the  same  work  again — that  is, 
the  committee  of  Secretaries  collaborating  to  make  some  sort 
of  a  syllabus  of  the  work  that  has  been  done  and  send  it  out 
just  as  it  was  sent  out  from  Savannah.  That  is  the  only  com- 
mittee able  to  do  it.  Three  editors  are  not  able  to  do  it,  and  we 
haven't  the  time  and  we  haven't  access  to  the  matter.  I  trust, 
if  this  Editorial  Committee  does  not  do  its  work,  that  the  re- 
sponsibility will  be  considered  as  lying  upon  the  committee  which 
had  been  previously  appointed  to  do  this  at  Savannah. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Is  there  any  other  busi- 
ness? 

J.  H.  Reynolds:  Reference  was  made  a  few  minutes  ago  by 
Dr.  Blake  to  an  interview  published  in  the  Post  Dispatch,  and 
I  really  feel  that  we  ought  to  take  some  notice  of  that.  And  I 
really  believe  that  every  public  body  assembled  in  this  country 
for  the  next  week  should  take  some  notice  of  that  matter.  I 
therefore  offer  the  following  resolution: 


252    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

We,  the  Joint  Commission  on  the  Unification  of  American  Methodism, 
here  record  our  amazement  at  the  interview  of  the  President  of  the  Ger- 
man Alliance  of  Missouri  as  published  in  the  Post  Dispatch  of  this  city 
of  even  date.  We  condemn  alike  the  interview  and  the  St.  Louis  Post 
Dispatch  for  publishing  it  as  unpatriotic  and  un-American,  calculated  to 
undermine  the  morale  of  the  nation  at  a  most  critical  hour.. 

Ira  E.  Robinson :  I  second  the  motion,  but  I  want  to  say  that 
the  resolution  is  not  strong  enough.  I  would  like  it  to  be  made 
very  much  stronger. 

Edwin  M.  Randall :  I  recall  that  in  that  interview  he  stated 
that  the  German  Alliance  of  Missouri  was  chartered  under  the 
laws  of  Missouri,  and  its  continuance  was  not  contingent  upon 
the  consent  of  the  National  Association,  but  that  the  organiza- 
tion in  Missouri  would  suspend  its  meetings  until  the  close  of 
the  war.  It  seems  to  me  that  such  an  organization,  if  cor- 
rectly represented  by  him  as  President,  is  not  fit  to  exist  even 
in  suspended  animation  and  that  it  is  as  unfit  to  exist  or  to  meet 
in  peace  as  in  time  of  war,  and  I  think  we  ought  to  say  so. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  am  not  quite  sure  but  that  this  inter- 
esting man  would  rather  enjoy  this  kind  of  publicity.  There 
is  nothing  I  would  not  gladly  do  in  the  matter,  but  my  firm 
conviction  is  that  the  best  way  for  us  to  do  in  this  matter  is 
simply  to  take  this  copy  of  the  interview  and  address  it  to  the 
Department  of  Justice  with  the  statement  on  our  part  that  this 
seems  to  us  such  an  offense  against  the  patriotism  and  loyalty 
of  the  country  as  to  call  for  immediate  action. 

C.  M.  Bishop :  I  move  that  that  be  the  action  of  this  body. 

The  motion  was  seconded. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Is  that  accepted  as  a 
substitute? 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  want  the  protest  to  go  to  the  Depart- 
ment of  Justice;  I  do  not  care  about  the  press. 

Bishop  Hamilton :  I  do  not  want  to  differ  from  you  in  any 
respect,  because  I  sympathize  with  everything  that  is  said  in 
the  paper,  and  I  can  very  soon  dig  down  deep  in  me  to  get 
something  more  than  that ;  but  I  have  an  impression  that  it 
will  be  more  effective  if  we  would  send  it  to  the  Department  of 
Justice,  rather  than  to  give  it  to  the  public  and  then  send  it 
to  the  Department  of  Justice.  If  it  were  to  get  out  now,  it 
would  be  telegraphed  all  over  the  United  States  before  the  De- 
partment of  Justice  gets  it  and  there  would  be  a  prejudgment 
of  the  matter;  but  if  we  think  it  is  of  sufficient  importance,  rep- 
resenting all  we  do  here,  to  call  it  to  the  attention  of  the  De- 
partment of  Justice  and  even  go  farther,  I  believe  it  would  be 
more  effective  to  simply  publish  this  in  the  newspapers  and  then 
ask  the  Department  of  Justice  to  take  it  up. 

Ira  E.  Robinson :  I  think  this  body  of  Methodism  ought  to 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


253 


give  to  the  world  or  to  the  press  immediately  a  protest  against 
this  resolution.  As  I  said  a  moment  ago,  I  want  a  stronger 
one  even  than  this.  This  man  has  lost  his  rights  as  to  American 
citizenship,  and  I  believe  he  should  be  dealt  with  accordingly. 
He  is  hardly  entitled  to  a  jury  trial.  I  am  not  in  sympathy  with 
taking  it  up  with  the  Department  of  Justice.  Let  us  say  that 
the  District  Attorney  has  already  noticed  it  and  will  handle  the 
matter.  I  happen  to  know  that  the  District  Attorneys  are  very 
vigilant.  The  Government  will  no  doubt  do  its  part.  I  think 
we  ought  to  call  attention  to  it  right  now,  and  let  the  matter 
be  transmitted  to  the  Department  of  Justice  later  if  it  is  de- 
sired.   I  don't  want  to  interfere  with  that. 

P.  D.  Maddin:  At  Nashville  some  months  ago  there  was 
formed  what  is  known  as  the  War  Service  League  of  the  Nash- 
ville Bar,  in  which  every  member  of  the  Bar  still  remaining  there 
is  a  member.  More  than  forty  members  have  gone  into  the 
war  service,  and  every  remaining  lawyer  in  Nashville  is  a 
member  of  this  League.  One  of  the  principles  of  the  organiza- 
tion is  that  it  is  one  of  our  duties  to  be  carefully  on  the  look- 
out for  seditious  and  disloyal  utterances,  and  I  want  to  assure 
you  that  Monday  morning  I  will  call  that  association  together 
and  have  them  take  positive  action.  This  did  not  take  place  in 
our  State,  but  that  paper  circulates  in  our  State  and  we  will 
take  action,  and  this  matter  will  be  called  to  the  attention  of  the 
Department  of  Justice.  It  is  not  only  our  privilege  but  our  duty 
as  members  of  the  Legal  Advisory  Board  of  the  United  States 
to  keep  on  the  lookout  for  such  articles  and  call  them  to  the  at- 
tention of  the  District  Attorneys  and  we  are  going  to  deal  with 
this  man  properly,  you  may  never  fear. 

Frank  M.  Thomas:  I  am  in  thorough  sympathy  with  the 
spirit  of  this  matter,  but  it  a  little  dangerous  for  a  great  body 
representing  what  we  do — the  spiritual,  moral,  and  social  pow- 
er we  represent — to  take  specific  action  with  reference  to  an  in- 
dividual upon  a  newspaper  publication.  I  think  we  should  first 
of  all  know  as  to  the  accuracy  of  the  interview,  because  it  is 
very  easy  to  find  things  in  the  paper  that  are  not  true.  I  judge 
that  it  is.  In  the  second  place,  I  think  it  would  be  wiser  to 
make  a  general  pronouncement  upon  the  question.  Sometimes 
men  get  led  into  a  blind  alley  in  a  case  like  this.  I  want  to  be 
exactly  sure  of  my  grounds. 

Ira  E.  Robinson:  One  reason  why  he  cannot  be  indicted 
would  be  if  it  were  true. 

Edgar  Blake:  We  all  appreciate  the  danger  of  taking  press 
reports  as  true,  but  this  is  so  detailed  and  so  specific  that  there 
can  be  very  little  question  but  that  an  interview  of  this  char- 
acter was  given ;  but  in  any  event,  whether  this  interview  was 
given  or  not,  the  Post  Dispatch  remains  culpable  for  publish- 


f 


254    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

ing  the  matter.  I  think  this  resolution  should  go  right  to  that 
paper. 

Frank  M.  Thomas :  I  agree  with  you  there. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  I  want  to  utter  this  caution.  I  think  I  am  as 
patriotic  as  any  man  here.  But  I  have  seen  things  published 
that  were  very  far  from  right.  I  have  been  published  as  de- 
livering a  sermon  when  I  was  hundreds  of  miles  away  at  the 
time  it  was  said  I  delivered  the  sermon.  Now,  suppose  we  pass 
this  resolution  and  this  man  comes  in  and  says,  "You  are  mis- 
taken;  I  never  said  it  at  all,"  what  is  our  position?  This  is  a 
time  when  the  American  people  rightly  are  much  excited  on  this 
question  of  the  war.  But  let  us  be  a  little  careful.  Let  us  not 
go  too  fast.  We  should  be  slow  in  publishing  any  such  thing 
of  this  nature,  and  at  this  time  the  United  States  has  a  de- 
partment specially  to  attend  to  such  things.  Let  us  call  the 
attention  of  that  department  to  it  and  let  them  take  care  of  it. 

C.  M.  Bishop:  It  seems  to  me  we  might  combine  these  two 
motions  by  asking  Dr.  Reynolds  to  send  his  paper  transmitting 
the  clipping  to  the  Department  of  Justice  of  the  United  States 
and  also  authorize  that  it  be  given  to  the  press  at  once.  Let 
us  send  the  clipping  and  the  words  of  Dr.  Reynolds's  resolution 
to  the  Department  of  Justice  in  the  form  of  a  letter,  and  then 
also  give  it  to  the  press. 

Ira  E.  Robinson:  If  it  goes  to  the  Department  of  Justice,  it 
will  be  sent  back  to  the  District  Attorney  here. 

Bishop  Leete :  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  form  of 
interview.  It  says  the  reporter  says  he  did.  It  may  be  that  the 
reporter  has  it  in  for  this  man  for  some  reason.  Let  us  be 
careful  not  to  place  snap  judgment  on  a  man  from  a  news- 
paper clipping.  We  have  all  suffered  that  way.  This  may  not 
be  anything  but  a  reporter's  work  which  an  editor  allowed  to 
go  through. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Let  us  see  where  we  are. 

Secretary  Thomas:  The  first  was  a  resolution  offered  by  Dr. 
Reynolds.  There  was  an  amendment  to  that  by  Bishop  Mc- 
Dowell that  the  publication  be  sent  to  the  Department  of  Jus- 
tice with  a  protest. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  I  think  we  ought  to  know  whether  the  man 
said  it  or  not.  There  is  no  question  that  the  newspaper  pub- 
lished it. 

Bishop  McDowell :  The  Department  of  Justice  centers  in 
Washington.  It  reaches  throughout  the  whole  country.  In 
point  of  fact,  the  Department  of  Justice  is  right  here  in  St. 
Louis  just  as  generally  as  we  have  it  in  Washington.  Is  it 
not,  Mr.  Maddin? 

P.  D.  Maddin :  Yes. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  personally  want  to  go  on  record  as  not 


St.  Louis  Meeting 


255 


being  in  favor  of  a  public  statement.  I  think  the  wise  course 
for  us  now  in  this  matter  is  to  send  Dr.  Reynolds's  resolution 
with  our  convictions  to  the  Department  of  Justice  represented 
in  this  city  by  the  District  Attorney,  and  not  necessarily  make 
any  public  fuss  about  it.    Let  the  Department  make  the  fuss. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  With  that  understand- 
ing, are  you  ready  to  vote? 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  motion  was  carried. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  now  move  that  a  copy  of  the  resolution  be 
sent  to  the  managing  editor  of  the  Post  Dispatch. 

Bishop  Hamilton:  If  you  do  that,  it  will  go  into  the  Post 
Dispatch  and  all  over  the  country. 

Edgar  Blake:  That  is  the  paper  that  published  it. 

Bishop  Hamilton:  But  they  would  take  it  for  granted,  if  you 
sent  it,  that  they  were  expected  to  print  it. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  want  this  managing  editor  to  know  that  we 
regard  it  as  an  offense  by  the  publisher. 

Bishop  Hamilton :  I  have  no  objection  to  that ;  but  if  you 
send  that  to  the  editor  of  the  Post  Dispatch  he'll  feel  that  he 
has  the  authority  to  print  it,  and  it  may  interfere  with  the 
proper  proceeding  of  the  lawful  authorities  here.  I  fear  you 
are  going  to  get  the  thing  into  the  newspapers  when  you  don't 
intend  to.  I  have  no  objection  to  it;  but  if  you  don't  want  to 
get  it  into  the  newspapers,  don't  send  that. 

Edgar  Blake:  It  is  not  sent  for  publication,  although  I  would 
not  have  the  slightest  objection  to  its  being  published  if  the 
editor  wanted  to  do  it;  but  we  send  it  to  let  the  manager  know 
that  we  regard  it  as  an  offense  against  the  country  at  this  time. 

The  motion  was  seconded. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  It  might  be  considered 
that  we  are  outsiders. 

George  Warren  Brown :  I  think  we  are  absolutely  within 
our  province,  acting  as  the  representatives  of  the  two  great 
Methodisms  of  the  United  States. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  motion  of  Dr.  Blake  was  carried. 

E.  B.  Chappell:  Is  it  understood  that  Dr.  Stuart's  paper  is 
to  be  given  to  the  press? 

Edgar  Blake:  I  move  that  that  be  sent  to  the  Church  papers. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

Frank  M.  Thomas:  I  rise  for  a  question  of  information.  At 
Savannah  two  Secretaries  were  instructed  to  make  statements 
to  the  Associated  Press  for  transmission  to  the  country.  Do 
you  wish  a  similar  statement  made  at  the  close  of  this  meeting? 

On  motion  duly  made  and  seconded,  this  was  ordered. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  I  move  that  we  adjourn  after  reading  the 
minutes. 


256    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  car- 
ried. 

The  minutes  were  thereupon  read  and  approved. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  am  sure  that  the  word  of  one  of  us 
will  be  accepted  by  the  entire  Commission.  I  am  sure  we  all 
gratefully  appreciate  the  services  of  our  official  stenographer, 
whose  work  has  enabled  the  Secretaries  to  do  their  work  cor- 
rectly and  accurately.  I  could  not  let  the  Commission  adjourn 
without  saying  this  word  concerning  this  difficult  position  which 
has  been  so  fully  met  with,  I  am  sure  we  all  agree,  such  distin- 
guished success. 

Bishop  Cranston :  What  was  meant  to  go  to  the  press  ?  Let 
us  understand  that  thoroughly. 

J.  H.  Reynolds :  I  mean  that  all  documents  and  papers  shall 
be  available  for  the  press. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Is  it  understood  that  your 
motion  carries  the  publishing  of  the  debates? 

J.  H.  Reynolds :  I  didn't  include  that  in  my  motion.  But  it 
was  later  decided  to  include  that. 

Bishop  Cranston :  Let  anybody  come  in  and  take  out  this, 
that,  or  the  other  and  comment  upon  it? 

Edwin  M.  Randall :  There  was  a  record  made  of  those  who 
had  sons  in  service  in  the  war  in  France,  but  the  record  was 
not  very  definite.  I  wish  that  we  could  have  this  matter  laid 
before  us  a  little  more  definitely. 

P.  D.  Maddin :  In  sending  this  communication  to  the  Post 
Dispatch  I  think  it  should  be  made  clear  that  it  is  a  communi- 
cation to  the  managing  editor,  and  not  to  the  Editorial  De- 
partment for  publication.  I  think  it  should  be  made  that  way 
in  our  minutes. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  The  journal  is  approved 
as  corrected,  and  I  will  ask  Dr.  Jones  to  lead  us  in  prayer  and 
Bishop  Mouzon  to  pronounce  the  benediction. 

This  was  done  and  the  Commission  adjourned  sine  die. 


PROCEEDINGS  AT  CLEVELAND,  OHIO 
JULY  7-10,  1919 

17 


COMMISSION  ON  UNIFICATION  OF  THE  METH- 
ODIST EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


Bishops 

Earl  Cranston,  Washington,  D.  C. 
John  W.  Hamilton,  Washington,  D.  C. 
William  F.  McDowell,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Frederick  D.  Leete,  Atlanta,  Ga. 
Richard  J.  Cooke,  Helena,  Mont. 

Ministers 

Edgar  Blake,  Chicago,  111. 
John  J.  Wallace,  Pittsburgh,  Pa. 
David  G.  Downey,  New  York,  N.  Y. 
John  F.  Goucher,  Baltimore,  Md. 
Robert  E.  Jones,  New  Orleans,  La. 
Albert  J.  Nast,  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 
Frank  Neff,  Hutchinson,  Kans. 
Edwin  M.  Randall,  Everett,  Wash. 
Claudius  B.  Spencer,  Kansas  City,  Mo. 
Joseph  W.  Van  Cleve,  Chicago,  111. 

Laymen 

George  Warren  Brown,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

James  R.  Joy,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

Abram  W.  Harris,  Secretary,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

Charles  W.  Kinne,  Jacksonville,  Fla. 

Irvine  G.  Penn,  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 

Ira  E.  Robinson,  Charleston,  W.  Va. 

Henry  Wade  Rogers,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

William  Rule,  Knoxville,  Tenn. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Rolla  V.  Watt,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 


COMMISSION  ON  UNIFICATION  OF  THE  METHOD- 
IST EPISCOPAL  CHURCH,  SOUTH 


Bishops 

Warren  A.  Candler,  Atlanta,  Ga. 
Collins  Denny,  Richmond,  Va. 
Edwin  D.  Mouzon,  Dallas,  Tex. 
John  M.  Moore,  Nashville,  Tenn. 
James  Cannon,  Jr.,  San  Antonio,  Tex. 

Ministers 

Frank  M.  Thomas,  Secretary,  Louisville,  Ky. 

W.  J.  Young,  Atlanta,  Ga. 

C.  M.  Bishop,  Georgetown,  Tex. 

E.  B.  Chappell,  Nashville,  Tenn. 

T.  N.  Ivey,  Nashville,  Tenn. 

A.  F.  Watkins,  Jackson,  Miss. 

A.  J.  Lamar,  Nashville,  Tenn. 

P.  H.  Linn,  Fayette,  Mo. 

C.  C.  Selecman,  Los  Angeles,  Cal. 

James  E.  Dickey,  Atlanta,  Ga. 

Laymen 

M.  L.  Walton,  Woodstock,  Va. 

H.  N.  Snyder,  Spartanburg,  S.  C. 

P.  D.  Maddin,  Nashville,  Tenn. 

J.  R.  Pepper,  Memphis,  Tenn. 

R.  S.  Hyer,  Dallas,  Tex. 

J.  H.  Reynolds,  Conway,  Ark. 

R.  E.  Blackwell,  Ashland,  Va. 

T.  D.  Samford,  Opelika,  Ala. 

H.  H.  White,  Alexandria,  La. 

J.  G.  McGowan,  Water  Valley,  Miss. 


RESERVE  MEMBERS 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church 

Bishop  Luther  B.  Wilson,  New  York,  N.  Y. 
Rev.  Charles  M.  Stuart,  D.D.,  Evanston,  111. 
Rev.  Frank  M.  North,  New  York,  N.  Y. 
Charles  A.  Pollock,  Fargo,  N.  Dak. 
Elmer  L.  Kidney,  Pittsburgh,  Pa. 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South 

Bishop  H.  M.  Du  Bose,  Berkeley,  Cal- 
Bishop  W.  N.  Ainsworth,  Savannah,  Ga. 
Rev.  W.  D.  Bradfield,  Dallas,  Tex. 
Rev.  I.  C.  Jenkins,  Jacksonville,  Fla. 
Rev.  L.  E.  Todd,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 
Rev.  D.  H.  Kern,  Roanoke,  Va. 
Edward  W.  Hines,  Louisville,  Ky. 
G.  T.  Fitzhugh,  Memphis,  Tenn. 
W.  P.  Few,  Durham,  N.  C. 
C.  M.  Hay,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 


FIRST  DAY,  MONDAY,  JULY  7,  1919. 


The  Joint  Commission  met  in  the  Lattice  Room  of  the  Hotel 
Statler,  Cleveland,  Ohio,  and  was  called  to  order  at  10:30  a.m. 
by  Bishop  Earl  Cranston. 

The  hymn,  "I  love  thy  kingdom,  Lord,"  was  sung. 

Bishop  Mouzon  read  the  eighty-fourth  Psalm. 

Dr.  A.  J.  Lamar  offered  prayer. 

The  hymn,  "All  hail  the  power  of  Jesus'  name,"  was  sung, 
after  which  Bishop  J.  W.  Hamilton  offered  prayer. 

Bishop  Cranston :  Brethren,  my  heart  is  full  of  thanksgiving 
to  God  that  he  has  so  continued  his  favor  to  us  as  to  bring  us 
together  in  this  holy  conference.  I  am  compelled  to  take  knowl- 
edge of  the  absence  of  one  whom  I  have  been  in  the  habit  of 
meeting  in  the  Federal  Council  and  in  the  sessions  of  the  Com- 
mission on  Unification  from  the  beginning  of  my  own  connec- 
tion with  these  fraternal  movements  by  our  respective  Churches. 
I  miss  Bishop  Hoss.  Am  I  right  in  this,  that  Dr.  Thomas  and  I 
are  now  the  only  ones  remaining  of  the  original  number  of  the 
Federal  Council?  My  own  connection  with  the  Commission 
preceding  the  Council  dated  from  the  decease  of  Bishop  Merrill, 
which  seems  to  me  now  quite  a  way  back.  And  yet  in  the  re- 
curring sessions  of  the  Commission,  then  of  the  Federal  Coun- 
cil, and  at  last  the  sessions  of  the  Commission  on  Unification, 
there  has  been  such  a  refreshing  exchange  of  growing  confi- 
dence and  such  an  increasing  fraternity  of  approach  and  repre- 
sentation that  the  years  have  not  seemed  to  me  to  be  long.  When 
I  have  heard  it  sometimes  suggested  that  our  meetings  were 
fruitless  and  that  it  was  hardly  worth  while  for  us  to  come  to- 
gether again  to  pursue  the  old  topics,  it  has  caused  me  a  sinking 
of  the  heart.  I  could  never  consent  that  there  should  be  even 
a  vacation  in  the  efforts  to  bring  together  again  the  sons  of 
Wesley  for  the  final  struggle  in  the  conquest  of  the  world  for 
Christ.  Bishop  Hoss  was  among  our  strongest  men.  He  was  a 
stalwart  soul,  facing  God  without  fear,  facing  man  without  fear : 
Facing  God  without  fear  because  he  knew  he  was  redeemed  and 
that  One  stood  in  his  stead,  to  whom  he  was  absolutely  loyal, 
at  the  court  of  heaven ;  and  not  fearing  man,  because  he  was  so 
manly  a  man  that  no  man  looking  into  his  face  could  for  one 
moment  feel  doubt  of  him,  so  fortified  was  he  in  truth  and  in 
frankness  of  speech.  He  was  as  clear  headed  as  he  was  warm 
hearted.  He  was  direct  and  formidable  in  attack,  but  utterly 
fair  and  honorable  in  discussion,  never  apologetic  for  his  con- 
victions; quick  at  the  sword,  but  instant  also  in  effort  to  ease 


262    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

the  hurt  of  the  blow  given  in  advance  or  in  defense  of  his  prin- 
ciples. Bishop  Hoss  was  versatile,  widely  informed,  classic  in 
bis  tastes.  He  was  a  scholarly  statesman  as  nearly  as  I  can  de- 
fine him  from  my  impressions.  And  while  in  behalf  of  our  Com- 
mission I  tender  sympathy  to  you  brethren  who  have  been  be- 
reaved in  his  passing  from  your  midst,  at  the  same  time  I  must 
bring  congratulation  to  your  Church  that  she  bred  a  son  so  noble 
in  all  his  aspirations,  so  true  to  all  that  he  held  as  truth,  and  so 
ready  to  meet — I  will  not  say  "the  last  enemy,"  but  the  Friend 
who  should  introduce  him  into  the  better  company  than  that 
had  longingly  waited  his  coming.  His  fight  against  disease  was 
a  prolonged  demonstration  of  his  faith  and  courage.  As  all  of 
us,  I  think,  feel  in  our  hearts  to-day  the  sense  of  a  vanished 
presence,  I  believe  that  we  shall  also  feel  the  inspiration  of  his 
brotherly  honesty  as  we  go  about  the  work  which  remains  for 
us  to  do.  It  is  a  great  pleasure  for  us  to  know  that  Bishop 
Mouzon,  after  the  resignation  of  Bishop  Candler,  whom  we  shall 
miss  here,  has  been  honored  by  his  brethren  with  the  chairman- 
ship of  the  Commission  of  the  Church,  South.  Under  your  rules 
he  will  be  your  presiding  officer  during  half  the  sessions  that  are 
to  ensue.  I  could  say  much,  brethren,  about  the  nature  of  our 
work  here  and  the  spirit  in  which  we  should  go  about  it ;  but  it 
is  only  just  to  you  to  assume  that  we  have  all  taken  to  heart  this 
solemn  responsibility.  Nothing  that  I  could  say  in  portrayal  of 
the  condition  of  the  world  to-day  and  the  call  upon  Christianity 
for  the  conservation  of  all  its  resources  in  preparation  for  the 
most  tremendous  conflict  that  ever  awaited  the  Christian  Church 
would  add,  I  think,  to  what  your  own  reflections  under  the  inspira- 
tion of  God's  Spirit  must  have  brought  to  you.  But  some  strong 
words  are  pressing  for  utterance.  Have  confidence  in  God !  Go 
forward!  If  ever  any  people  on  earth  ought  to  have  fuU  faith 
in  God,  we  ought  to  have  such  confidence  as  Methodists.  And  if 
any  body  of  Methodists  ought  to  think  and  act  without  fear  of 
men,  but  in  the  fear  of  God  and  in  the  spirit  of  Wesley  toward 
Jesus  Christ  and  his  kingdom,  that  body  is  this  body  of  chosen 
men.  Let  us  see  to  it  that  we  shrink  not  from  the  face  of  man, 
that  we  pause  not  in  the  following  of  the  Master,  but  ever  hold- 
ing his  kingdom  first  in  our  own  thought,  prove  ourselves  as 
brave  and  true  and  faithful  as  our  fathers  were  in  laying  the 
foundations  on  which  we  are  now  building  for  the  days  they 
could  not  foresee.    What  is  the  pleasure  of  the  meeting? 

Bishop  Denny :  I  trust  it  will  not  be  regarded  as  presumption 
if  I  step  forward  to  say  a  word  on  behalf  of  the  Commission 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  in  response  to  your 
touching  remarks  concerning  Bishop  Hoss.  T,  too,  knew  him 
well  and  long  and  intimately,  and  with  the  stress  on  manhood 
and  on  the  word  "man,"  a  great  man  passed  from  us  when 


Cleveland  Meeting 


263 


Elijah  Embree  Hoss  left  the  world.  I  shall  not  take  time  to 
attempt  anything  like  an  analysis  of  the  traits  and  characteris-- 
tics  and  gifts  of  Bishop  Hoss.  It  is  enough  to  say  just  a  word 
or  two  in  response  to  your  gracious  words.  Bishop  Hoss  was^ 
one  of  the  broadest-minded  men  I  ever  knew.  I  think  he  under- 
stood and  reciprocated  or  at  least  united  with  the  words  that 
Wesley  so  strongly  stressed,  "If  thy  heart  be  as  my  heart,  give 
me  thy  hand."  He  had  a  trait  that  was  not  so  often  dwelt  upon,( 
and  yet  it  was  a  trait  that  constantly  won  my  admiration.  He 
had  a  deep  sympathy  with  men  with  whose  opinions  he  did  not 
agree.  And  it  is  not  so  common  a  trait  as  it  ought  to  be.  He 
was  strong  in  his  convictions,  as  we  all  know,  and  ready  to 
speak  them.  And  yet,  at  the  same  time,  he  recognized  that  his 
own  claim  to  expression  of  his  opinion  involved  the  right  to  every 
other  man,  that  he  must  grant,  to  give  expression  to  his  opinion. 
I  was  often  struck  in  connection  with  Bishop  Hoss'  life,  in  my 
close  association  with  him,  with  the  intensity  of  his  Methodism. 
And  yet  at  the  same  time  I  think  he  held  in  mind  a  statement  that 
Adam  Clarke  made  when  some  one  asked  him  if  he  were  not  a 
bigot.  He  said,  "No,  thank  God,  for  I  am  a  Methodist/'  I 
have  often  heard  Bishop  Hoss  repeat  that.  He  was  an  intense 
Methodist.  Somehow  in  our  day  there  is  an  atmosphere  which 
finds  voice,  that  we  are  coming  to  a  time  when  we  shall  be  bet- 
ter Christians  and  less  Methodists.  I  confess  my  inability  to 
understand  what  that  may  mean ;  because  I  have  regarded  Meth- 
odism as  the  best  expression  of  the  truth  of  God  that  has  ever 
been  given  to  the  sons  of  men.  And  how  we  can  depart  from 
that  truth  and  be  better  Christians  is  just  outside  the  range  of 
my  vision.  Now,  whether  I  be  right  or  wrong  in  that,  at  any 
rate  I  am  glad  to  be  able  to  tell  you  that  after  long  years  of  inti- 
mate confidential  talk  with  Bishop  Hoss  at  times  when  all  the 
shutters  were  thrown  open  and  the  windows  were  all  raised  and 
the  sunlight  was  flooding  every  corner  of  his  heart,  I  could  see 
the  depth  of  his  devotion  to  the  Methodist  Church  that  in  the 
providence  of  God  had  opened  the  kingdom  of  God  to  him,  had 
given  him  a  field  of  service,  had  supplied  him  with  everything 
that  a  man  needs  to  honor  God  and  help  his  fellow  men.  Some 
men  may  regard  it  as  narrow  in  him,  but  I  cannot  regard  it  as 
such.  He  did  not  think  he  could  ever  be  a  better  Christian  by 
being  a  poorer  Methodist.  I  need  not  tell  you  of  Bishop  Hoss' 
attainments.  You  all  know  that,  whether  he  were  followed  or 
not,  account  had  to  be  taken  of  him  in  our  branch  of  the  Church 
in  connection  with  all  that  was  done ;  and  he  did  have  a  wonder- 
fully molding  influence  on  the  Church  for  many  years.  I  thank 
God  that  I  knew  him.  In  the  best  sense  of  an  abused  term, 
Hoss  was  a  pious  man.  When  he  felt  that  he  could  express  him- 
self freely  there  was  a  gushing,  outgoing  of  his  heart  toward 


264    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

the  Lord  Jesus.  He  lived  and  he  died  trusting  time  and  eternity 
to  the  Lord  who  touched  his  heart  when  he  was  but  a  young 
boy,  and  who  touched  his  lips  with  many  gracious  messages  for 
the  comfort  and  uplift  of  all  the  people  to  whom  he  could  get 
access. 

Bishop  Cranston :  Brethren,  shall  we  stand  for  a  moment  be- 
fore God  in  silent  thanksgiving  for  the  life  and  service  of 
Bishop  Hoss? 

(In  response  to  this  invitation,  all  stood  reverently  in  silence 
for  a  moment.) 

Bishop  Cranston :  Servant  of  God,  well  done.  We  remember 
thee,  and  we  follow  thee.  Amen. 

The  roll  was  called,  and  the  following  members  were  present : 
Bishops  Collins  Denny,  E.  D.  Mouzon,  J.  M.  Moore,  James 
Cannon,  Jr.,  W.  N.  Ainsworth,  Earl  Cranston,  J.  W.  Hamilton, 
W.  F.  McDowell,  F.  D.  Leete,  R.  J.  Cooke.  Ministers:  F.  M. 
Thomas,  W.  J.  Young,  C.  M.  Bishop,  T.  N.  Ivey,  A.  J.  Lamar, 
A.  F.  Watkins,  P.  H.  Linn,  C.  C.  Selecman,  J.  E.  Dickey,  W. 
D.  Bradfield,  Edgar  Blake,  David  G.  Downey,  J.  F.  Goucher, 
A.  J.  Nast,  Frank  Neff,  E.  M.  Randall,  C.  B.  Spencer,  J.  J. 
Wallace,  F.  M.  North.  Laymen:  M.  L.  Walton,  H.  N.  Snyder, 
P.  D.  Maddin,  R.  S.  Hyer,  J.  H.  Reynolds,  R.  E.  Blackwell,  T. 
D.  Samford,  J.  R.  Pepper,  H.  H.  White,  J.  G.  McGowan,  A.  W. 
Harris,  C.  W.  Kinne,  Alex.  Simpson,  Jr.,  J.  R.  Joy,  C.  A.  Pol- 
lock, E.  L.  Kidney.  Those  of  this  number  who  are  new  on  the 
Commission  were  introduced — namely,  F.  M.  North,  W.  D. 
Bradfield,  P.  H.  Linn,  C.  C.  Selecman,  Bishop  James  Cannon, 
Jr.,  J.  E.  Dickey,  Judge  J.  G.  McGowan,  E.  L.  Kidney,  and 
Bishop  W.  N.  Ainsworth. 

Bishop  Cranston:  What  is  the  pleasure  of  the  Commission? 

F.  M.  Thomas :  I  understand  that  both  Commissions  have 
taken  favorable  action  on  admitting  the  editors  of  our  official 
Church  organs  to  the  sessions  of  this  body.  I  therefore  move 
joint  action  by  this  body. 

The  motion  was  seconded. 

Bishop  Denny :  I  think  it  ought  to  be  distinctly  understood, 
in  view  of  the  request  that  came  to  our  Commission  from  the 
Commission  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  that  for  our- 
selves we  proposed  that  the  editors  of  our  Church  papers,  such 
Church  papers  as  were  under  Conference  patronage,  were  to  be 
admitted ;  but  we  do  not  undertake  to  pass  on  the  qualifications 
of  those  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

Bishop  Cranston :  It  would  be,  of  course,  for  each  Commission 
to  determine  what  editors  under  this  action  were  to  be  admitted. 

The  motion  for  admission  of  the  editors  prevailed. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  For  the  information  of  the  Commission  I 
suggest  that  Dr.  Thomas,  Secretary  of  the  Southern  Commis- 


Cleveland  Meeting 


265 


sion,  read  a  paper  that  was  adopted  by  the  recent  General  Con- 
ference of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  continuing 
the  Commission  and  giving  us  authority  to  proceed  with  our 
negotiations. 

Dr.  Thomas  read  the  above-mentioned  paper,  as  follows: 

Be  it  resolved:  1.  That  we  express  our  high  appreciation  of  the  faith- 
ful and  earnest  efforts  of  our  Commission,  authorized  by  the  last  General 
Conference,  to  secure  unification  in  accordance  with  the  basic  principles 
of  the  suggestions  for  unification  framed  and  proposed  by  the  joint  action 
of  the  Federal  Council  of  Methodism  at  its  meeting  in  Chattanooga,  May, 
1911,  and  approved  in  the  main  by  our  General  Conference  in  1914. 

2.  That  we  hereby  reaffirm  the  action  of  the  General  Conference  of 
1914,  and  declare  the  readiness  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
to  continue  negotiations  on  the  basis  approved  by  that  action  in  case  the 
Commission  or  other  duly-constituted  authorities  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  signify  their  desire  for  the  continuance  of  negotiations  upon 
that  basis. 

We  sincerely  trust  that  some  feasible  plan  may  yet  be  found  to  bring 
about  such  unification  by  reorganization,  and  we  therefore  recommend 
the  continuance  of  a  Commission  to  act  in  conjunction  with  the  Com- 
mission of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  for  the  further  consideration 
of  this  great  subject. 

3.  That  we  express  our  hearty  approval  of  the  suggestion  contained 
in  the  report  of  our  Commission,  that  the  two  Methodisms  not  only  con- 
tinue to  discuss  unification,  but  that  they  make  a  practical  advance  toward 
it  by  closer  cooperation  in  their  various  activities.  We  agree  with  the 
statement  in  the  Episcopal  Address  that  it  is  "our  earnest  hope  that  a 
way  may  be  found  for  some  plan  of  cooperation  among  the  Methodists 
of  America  which  shall,  as  far  as  possible,  eliminate  wastage  of  men  and 
money  in  the  territory  in  which  both  Churches  have  established  them- 
selves." 

Our  Commission  is  hereby  instructed  to  give  most  careful  considera- 
tion to  this  matter  of  closer  cooperation,  in  order,  not  only  to  eliminate 
waste,  but  to  secure  the  greatest  possible  results  from  the  efficient  adjust- 
ment of  the  workers  of  both  Churches. 

4.  That  we  recommend  that  the  General  Conference  order  the  publica- 
tion of  the  discussions  of  the  Joint  Commission,  as  stenographically  re- 
corded, to  be  made  available  for  the  information  of  the  ministry  and 
laity  of  both  Churches,  the  cost  of  the  publication  of  said  report  to  be 
defrayed  by  the  money  received  from  the  sale  of  said  report,  the  defi- 
ciency, should  there  be  any,  to  be  met  by  the  Agents  of  the  Publishing 
House.  James  Cannon,  Jr.,  Chairman; 

R.  H.  Wynn,  Secretary. 

Bishop  Mouzon:  As  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  has  intervened  since  our  last  meeting, 
and  since  it  may  be  worth  while  to  bring  to  you  an  interpreta- 
tion of  the  action  taken  by  our  recent  General  Conference,  I 
am  authorized  and  requested  by  my  Commission  to  say  to  you 
that  the  following  action  was  unanimously  taken  by  the  Com- 
mission of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South: 

Be  it  resolved,  That  our  Commission  stands  on  the  same  basis  and  with 
the  same  powers  as  when  our  Commission  first  met  in  joint  session  in 
Baltimore  in  December,  1916. 


266   Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

Bishop  Cranston :  That,  of  course,  becomes  a  matter  of  record. 

Bishop  McDowell :  These  statements  do  of  course  become 
matters  of  record,  and  for  the  purpose  of  having  it  clearly  in 
mind  let  me  call  to  the  attention  of  the  Joint  Commission  that 
in  the  Baltimore  proceedings  you  will  find  the  list  of  declara- 
tions of  General  Conferences  and  the  Federal  Council,  given  in 
their  order.  I  do  not  this  minute  recall  the  pages,  but  the  docu- 
ment just  read  by  Dr.  Thomas  and  the  statement  made  by 
Bishop  Mouzon  should  now  be  in  your  minds  at  least  with  rela- 
tion to  these  similar  statements  of  the  action  of  various  bodies 
which  were  before  us. 

Bishop  Moore :  I  would  like  very  much  if  you  would  have  a 
statement  from  Bishop  Cannon,  who  was  the  Chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Church  Relations,  and  had  much  to  do  with  for- 
mulating this  report  adopted  by  our  General  Conference.  I  am 
very  desirous  that  this  Commission  should  have  a  thorough 
knowledge  of  the  exact  status  of  things  and  of  our  state  of 
mind. 

Bishop  McDowell :  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  been  long  enough 
together  now  to  proceed  with  one  another  without  any  hesita- 
tions and  without  any  feeling  that  either  must  seek  to  take  ad- 
vantage in  the  proceedings  or  in  any  other  method  or  any  meas- 
ure. I  have,  therefore,  pleasure  in  moving  that,  without  the  time 
limit  attached  to  our  debates,  Bishop  Cannon  be  requested  by 
the  Joint  Commission  to  make  such  statement  as  he  may  desire 
to  make  concerning  the  action  of  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  at  Atlanta. 

This  motion  was  seconded  and  carried  unanimously. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  had  not  expected  to  be  called  upon  to  make 
this  statement.  Bishop  Moore  did  intimate  in  the  meeting  of 
our  Commission  this  morning  that  it  might  be  in  place.  But  I 
will  try  to  make  it  as  concisely  and  consecutively  as  possible. 
As  Bishop  Moore  says,  I  was  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Church  Relations,  and  with  the  assistance  of  a  subcommittee  I 
prepared  the  report  which  was  adopted.  And  when  the  minority 
report  was  presented  before  the  General  Conference,  it  became 
necessary  for  me  to  make  some  statements  in  the  debate,  and 
those  statements  were  made  to  clarify  the  situation  and  to  em- 
phasize what  was  in  the  mind  of  the  committee  who  did  pre- 
pare the  report.  And  the  report  of  the  majority  was  adopted 
with  practical  unanimity  after  those  statements  had  been  made, 
the  minority  leaders  withdrawing  the  minority  report,  and  then 
the  vote  being  taken  with  probably  not  more  than  six  or  eight 
in  the  negative.  So  I  think  it  is  only  fair  to  conclude  that  the 
statements  which  were  made  by  the  Chairman  of  the  committee 
at  that  time  were  practically  approved  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence itself,  by  its  action.    In  offering  the  amendment  at  Okla- 


Cleveland  Meeting 


267 


lioma  City  to  the  report  of  the  committee,  I  remember  very  dis- 
tinctly, I  did  not  write  it  out  at  the  time,  but  made  a  verbal 
amendment,  and  Bishop  Moore  did,  perhaps  from  memory,  write 
the  exact  words  which  now  appear.  But  I  was  so  well  satisfied 
with  the  wording,  when  I  saw  it,  that  it  expressed  exactly  my 
idea — namely,  that  the  colored  membership  should  be  formed 
into  an  independent  organization,  holding  fraternal  relations 
with  the  united  Church.  I  had  in  my  mind,  in  offering  that, 
something  a  little  different  from  the  relation  of  the  Colored 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  our  Church.  I  never  was  ex- 
actly satisfied  with  that  relationship.  I  was  satisfied  with  the 
relationship  proposed  by  our  General  Conference  in  1866,  which 
was  mentioned  by  Dr.  Watkins  in  a  speech  which  he  made  in 
Savannah.  I  think  our  fathers  were  wiser  in  their  proposed 
action  than  in  the  action  that  was  finally  taken — -namely,  in  their 
proposition  to  give  the  negro  membership  of  our  Church  a  sep- 
arate Conference,  which,  however,  would  be  tied  to  the  General 
Conference  of  our  Church  very  much  as  one  Annual  Conference 
is  tied  to  another.  But  in  that  amendment  I  had  in  view  very 
distinctly  another  report,  which  the  Committee  on  Church  Re- 
lations presented  and  which  was  adopted  by  our  General  Con- 
ference in  Oklahoma  City — namely,  the  constitution  of  a  com- 
mittee of  the  Connectional  Board  Secretaries  to  confer  with  the 
Secretaries  of  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  order 
that  in  some  way,  better  than  that  which  had  been  in  the  past, 
we  might  help  those  men,  by  advice,  that  was  authorized  by  our 
General  Conference  and  by  appropriations  that  would  be  made 
after  conference  between  the  Secretaries  of  the  colored  member- 
ship and  our  own  Secretaries.  And  that  was  in  my  mind  when  I 
offered  that  resolution.  It  did  mean  a  little  more  than  the  tie 
which  existed  between  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
and  our  Church.  So  the  words  "independent  organization"  do 
not  of  necessity  mean  an  independent  Church  in  the  broadest 
sense  of  the  word — that  is,  from  my  own  viewpoint.  Now,  when 
the  matter  came  up  before  the  Committee  on  Church  Relations 
at  the  General  Conference  at  Atlanta  the  question  was  very 
clearly  before  us  whether  we  should  continue  our  negotiations, 
whether  it  was  wise  to  go  further,  and  if  so,  on  what  basis.  And 
the  committee  was  overwhelmingly  in  favor  of  continuing  the 
negotiations,  and  on  the  same  basis  as  had  already  existed.  That 
is  to  say,  when  an  effort  was  made  in  the  minority  report  to  in- 
struct the  Commission  to  tell  them  they  must  have  regard  to 
certain  things,  the  majority  of  the  committee  said,  "No,  we  do 
not  want  to  do  that.  We  have  not  done  that  before."  And  when 
the  point  was  made  that  the  Oklahoma  City  declaration  did  tell 
our  Commission  that  it  must  not  do  certain  things  with  refer- 
ence to  the  colored  membership,  it  was  very  distinctly  emphasized 


268    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

that  that  statement  was  a  mistake,  that  that  was  not  an  instruc- 
tion, it  was  a  recommendation.  And  in  the  debate  that  followed, 
in  order  that  it  might  be  very  clear,  as  Chairman  of  the  commit- 
tee I  made  this  statement :  "We  stand  on  the  Oklahoma  platform. 
That  says  that  we  'recommend.'  We  do  not  tie  the  Commission's 
hands.  I  was  on  the  committee  that  shaped  that  resolution,  and 
I  think  I  made  the  motion  to  insert  that  clause,  and  I  under- 
stood it  exactly  as  inserted,  that  we  'recommend'  that  the  colored 
membership  of  the  various  Methodist  bodies  be  formed  into  an 
independent  Conference  holding  fraternal  relations  with  the  re- 
organized and  reunited  Church.  I  thought  that  to  be  the  state- 
ment of  our  position.  We  simply  repeated  that  recommenda- 
tion. We  do  not  go  any  further.  We  did  not  say  to  the  Com- 
mission, 'You  cannot  do  this';  but,  'There  is  our  recommenda- 
tion.' Judge  Candler  said  he  was  willing  to  abide  by  the  action 
of  your  Commissioners  at  Savannah.  He  was  intimating 
that  he  was  willing  to  go  that  far,  but  his  words  now  intimate 
that  he  is  not  willing  to  go  that  far.  That  Joint  Commission 
did  not  break  up  or  say,  'We  have  come  to  an  impossible  situa- 
tion.' It  said:  'We  transmit  to  our  respective  General  Confer- 
ences the  statement  of  those  items  which  have  been  tentatively 
accepted  by  the  Joint  Commission,  together  with  the  statement 
of  those  items  on  which  agreement  has  not  been  reached,  and 
we  recommend  the  continuance  of  the  Joint  Commission.' " 
That  is  the  action  they  sent  down  to  us,  to  our  Commission  and 
to  your  Commission.  So,  brethren — I  may  be  tedious,  but  I 
want  to  state  as  clearly  as  I  can  my  understanding  of  the  mean- 
ing of  our  General  Conference  action — our  General  Conference 
did  not  bind  our  Commission  with  instructions  any  more  than  it 
was  bound  in  1914.  It  left  it  there.  And  those  instructions  do 
contain  a  recommendation  of  what  we  think  is  wise,  of  our 
viewpoint,  of  what  we  believe  is  the  wise  thing  to  be  done.  As 
far  as  I  know,  there  has  been  no  change  of  view  on  the  part  of 
our  General  Conference.  They  reaffirm  the  Oklahoma  City 
declaration ;  and  that  declaration  is  clear,  and  that  declaration, 
we  think,  is  wise.  But  we  do  not  say  that  that  declaration  is  an 
ultimatum.  We  do  not  tie  our  Commission's  hands.  And  we 
come  here  to-day  with  the  practically  unanimous  vote  of  our 
General  Conference,  saying  as  plainly  as  a  body  can  say  that  we 
desire  the  unification  of  the  two  Methodisms  if  it  can  be  ac- 
complished by  such  methods  that  there  would  not  be,  in  our 
judgment,  greater  damage  done  by  the  unification  than  by  leav- 
ing matters  as  they  are.  I  do  not  know  that  this  is  the  time  to 
state  my  own  personal  views  on  this  matter  to  any  extent.  But 
in  response  to  Bishop  Moore's  request,  I  have  stated  what  I 
think  to  be  the  mind  of  our  General  Conference,  if  a  vote  can 
ever  indicate  to  representatives  what  is  the  mind  of  the  body 


/ 


Cleveland  Meeting 


269 


which  they  represent.  This  perhaps  is  an  additional  fact  that  is 
worthy  of  mention — namely,  that  when  the  question  arose  as  to 
whether  we  should  authorize,  or  rather  if  it  should  be  declared — 
that  is  a  better  word  than  authorize — whether  we  should  declare 
that  in  the  event  the  Joint  Commission  could  reach  an  agree- 
ment which  should  be  submitted  to  the  General  Conferences  of 
the  two  Churches,  our  General  Conference — although  it  was  dis- 
tinctly emphasized  that  the  bishops  could  call  the  General  Con- 
ference together — our  General  Conference  by  a  very  great  ma- 
jority (What  was  it?  194  to  about  74?)  put  itself  on  record  as 
desiring  that  statement  to  be  made,  that  we  desire  unification 
so  much  that  we  want  to  declare  to  the  brethren  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  that  we  would  call  a  session  of  our 
General  Conference  whenever  the  Commission  of  our  Church 
felt  that  it  was  justifiable  so  to  do. 

Bishop  McDowell :  The  statement  as  I  had  prepared  it  pro- 
ceeded partly  on  the  supposition  that  it  might  precede  what  has 
now  come  from  the  Commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South.  I  am  just  as  happy  to  have  had  this  statement 
precede  what  I  have  to  say  as  I  would  have  been  to  have  my 
own  precede  what  has  been  said.  For  the  full  object  in  what 
I  wish  to  say  in  behalf  of  our  Commission  is  that  we  shall  lay 
down  upon  the  table  just  as  frankly  as  possible  all  that  is  in  our 
minds.  I  am  very  sure,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  this  statement  will 
help  toward  economy  of  time  and  toward  progress.  We  come 
here  to-day  to  our  fifth  formal  meeting,  putting  Cleveland  in  the 
list  now  with  Baltimore,  Traverse  City,  Savannah,  and  St.  Louis, 
and  desire  to  get  as  quickly  as  we  possibly  can  to  the  very  heart 
of  our  task.  We  of  course  regard  the  Joint  Commission  as  con- 
tinued with  slight  changes  in  personnel.  Some  blades  that  were 
in  the  old  knife  have  been  exchanged  for  new  blades,  but  I  under- 
stand that  the  knife  is  the  same  knife.  In  other  words,  we  look 
upon  our  negotiations  as  being  continued,  and  not  as  being  now 
started.  I  am  very  sure  that  the  members  of  this  Commission 
from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  would  not  like  it  if  I  were 
to  fail  to  say  that  we  begin  this  fifth  session  with  a  great  deal 
more  satisfaction,  because  of  the  wealth  of  personal  fellowship 
?nd  confidence  and  affection  that  we  have  developed  in  the  pre- 
ceding sessions,  than  we  had  as  we  began  the  first  session.  We 
did  not  know  one  another  so  well  then.  We  did  not  trust  one 
another  then  quite  so  well.  We  did  not  love  one  another  quite 
so  affectionately.  And  I  am  sure  my  brethren  would  want  me 
to  say  that  we  have  a  very  different  feeling  as  we  come  together 
now  from  that  we  had  when  we  came  together  at  Baltimore. 

A.  J.  Lamar :  We  were  very  polite,  however,  at  Baltimore. 

Bishop  McDowell:  We  were  awfully  polite;  but  our  polite- 
ness seemed  to  me  to  be  rather  studied  at  times,  and  as  though 


270    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

we  wished  to  prove  that  we  had  good  manners.  Whereas  now 
I  am  very  sure  we  need  no  such  effort,  but  can  just  take  our  good 
manners  for  granted.  A  good  deal  of  water  has  run  under  the 
bridge  since  our  first  meeting.  We  have  discussed  pretty  elab- 
orately certain  subjects,  and  I  suppose  we  do  not  need  to  say 
over  again,  even  for  the  education  of  our  new  members,  the 
things  that  we  have  so  well  said  in  the  previous  sessions !  All 
that  is  in  print,  and  can  be  read  for  the  edification  of  those  who 
need  edification.  At  Baltimore  each  Commission  made  a  state- 
ment as  to  its  object  and  the  interpretation  of  its  own  powers, 
and  we  have  now  had  additional  statements  due  to  the  action  of 
the  General  Conference  which  has  acted  since  our  meeting  at 
St  Louis.  Your  General  Conference  has  met  and  received  the 
report  of  the  Joint  Commission  and  has  acted,  and  we  have  re- 
ceived with  great  satisfaction  this  report  which  has  come  from 
your  General  Conference  and  your  interpretation  of  the  action 
of  that  body.  You  will  remember  that  we  have  held  from  the 
beginning  that  each  Commission  must  be  the  interpreter  of  its 
own  powers  and  of  the  authority  under  which  it  acts.  Now,  in 
order  that  you  may  know  at  once  the  spirit  in  which  we  come  to 
this  meeting  to  continue  that  work  already  begun,  I  am  en- 
deavoring to  lay  before  you  our  mind  on  the  supreme  object  and 
on  what  we  conceive  to  be  the  chief  unfinished  tasks  of  this  body. 
We  are  here  with  some  new  members,  with  some  new  conditions. 
The  world  war  is  in  process  of  ending.  The  Centenary  has  been 
a  glorious  triumph  in  both  Churches,  for  which  we  devoutly 
thank  God.  And  the  world  call  is  upon  us  and  the  world  en- 
deavor is  at  hand,  whether  we  take  up  this  world  endeavor  sep- 
arately or  together.  We  desire  therefore  to  say,  first,  that  we 
regard  it  as  our  primary  instruction  to  obtain  unification  as  far 
as  that  can  be  done  by  this  Joint  Commission.  We  regard  it  as 
our  instruction  to  obtain  unification  and  not  prevent  it,  to  obtain 
it  and  not  simply  to  show  why  it  cannot  be  obtained.  Secondly, 
that  we  regard  ourselves  as  instructed  to  obtain  unification  by 
reorganization,  and  reorganization  on  the  basis  of  Regional  Con- 
ferences. This  is  in  loyal  accord  with  the  Chattanooga  plan 
which  has  been  approved  in  principle  by  both  Conferences. 
This  leaves,  of  course,  as  we  all  understand  perfectly  well,  a 
large  area  of  undetermined  matters — undetermined  as  to  the 
powers  of  the  Regional  Conferences,  undetermined  as  to  boun- 
daries, undetermined  as  to  relations.  Nevertheless,  we  regard 
ourselves  as  under  instructions  to  push  the  Regional  Conference 
matter  just  as  far  as  it  can  be  pushed,  and  to  endeavor  to  obtain 
unification  on  that  basis,  so  as  to  report  to  our  General  Confer- 
ences what  we  have  done,  leaving  those  General  Conferences  to 
say,  if  they  will,  that  what  we  have  done  under  what  we  believe 
to  be  instructions  is,  or  is  not,  acceptable.   We  do  not,  of  course, 


Cleveland  Meeting 


271 


regard  certain  modifications  of  that  plan  as  constituting  instruc- 
tions in  the  sense  in  which  we  regard  the  plan  itself  as  instruc- 
tion. We  regard  what  has  been  said  in  modification  as  in  the 
nature  of  advice,  and  the  expression  of  honest  opinion  of  each 
General  Conference;  but  these  matters  are  not  to  be  regarded 
exactly  as  a  mandate.  On  that  basis,  we  are  here  to  continue 
negotiations  for  the  great  end  desired,  we  believe,  by  our  Churches 
and  desired  by  us.  There  now  remain,  of  course,  we  all  know, 
two  major  matters  yet  unsolved,  the  full  and  perfect  plan  for 
Regional  Conferences  and  the  status  of  our  negro  membership. 
The  general  provision  for  the  creation  of  Regional  Conferences 
lias  been  adopted  tentatively  by  the  necessary  vote,  but  no  detailed 
plan  has  received  the  necessary  approval  of  both  Commissions. 
I  am  now  instructed  to  say  that  we  will  accept  and  report  to  our 
General  Conference,  if  satisfactory  to  you,  a  provision  for  six 
white  Regional  Conferences,  as  reported  in  Article  VI.,  Section 
1,  of  the  Savannah  folder.  Or  if  six  does  not  seem  to  you  the 
best  solution  at  this  time,  or  if,  for  any  reason,  you  desire  it, 
we  will  join  with  you  in  the  appointment  of  a  Committee  of 
Conference  to  consider  and  deal  with  this  matter  and  report  back 
to  this  Joint  Commission.  I  think  we  are  all  agreed  that  no  plan 
yet  presented  fully  meets  the  individual  views  of  every  member 
of  this  Commission.  For  example,  if  I  may  interject  this  as 
a  purely  personal  statement,  the  adjustments  for  the  Conferences 
on  what  we  call  the  border  have  not  yet  been,  to  my  satisfaction, 
properly  made.  Nevertheless,  we  are  prepared  to  do  our  level 
best  to  reach  an  arrangement  which  will  loyally  hold  and  per- 
fectly protect  all  the  Methodists  involved,  and  hold  them  to  the 
new  Church  which  under  God  we  are  trying  to  form.  For  I 
think  we  should  regard  it  as  a  distinct  misfortune  to  make  any 
plans  of  Regional  or  other  Conferences  that  would  cause  a  large 
loss  of  Methodist  Episcopal  people,  whether  they  belong  to  one 
or  the  other  of  the  two  Churches.  We  recognize  that  a  solu- 
tion of  the  two  major  problems  will  not  end  our  labors.  Therq 
will  be  needed  the  most  careful  study  of  details,  of  the  powers) 
of  the  several  classes  of  Conferences,  of  the  work  of  the  Churches 
in  foreign  lands,  of  the  adjustment  of  property  rights  and  of 
funds,  of  the  consolidation  and  coordination  of  boards  and 
benevolences.  But  these  things,  though  not  simple,  are  yet  pos- 
sible of  solution  through  committees,  and  some  of  them  we  may 
leave  to  be  solved  by  the  regularly  constituted  agencies  of  a 
united  Church.  Touching  the  negro  membership,  we  have  no 
additional  word  or  proposal  to  make  at  this  time.  The  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  at  Okla- 
homa City  recommended,  as  Bishop  Cannon  has  so  frankly 
stated  this  morning,  a  modification  of  the  Chattanooga  plan.  The 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 


272    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

at  Atlanta,  has  met  since  our  formal  meeting,  since  our  elaborate 
discussions,  since  those  sincere  efforts  were  made,  when  (shall 
I  say  it  in  the  presence  of  those  who  were  at  Savannah?)  we 
stretched  ourselves  and  almost  strained  ourselves  in  the  effort 
to  see  how  far  each  of  us  could  go  in  the  endeavor  to  get  to- 
gether. Now,  your  General  Conference  has  met  since  that,  and 
we  await  with  intense  interest  any  additional  words  you  may 
now  have  to  say  to  us  in  the  light  of  the  action  of  your  princi- 
pal body  on  this  phase  of  the  subject  as  well  as  upon  the  wholei 
subject.  You  have  had  the  opportunity  to  take  official  counsel 
of  your  constituency.  You  know  what  you  can  wisely  and  safely 
do.  We  have  not  had  opportunity  to  have  official  counsel  with, 
our  constituency.  That  opportunity  lies  ten  months  ahead.  But 
this  is  our  intense  desire  that  we  shall  reach  such  an  agreement 
upon  these  two  major  subjects  as  will  enable  us  to  make  reports 
to  the  General  Conferences  which  can  be  accepted.  Evidently 
this  is  your  desire.  You  would  not  have  made  the  provision  for 
a  General  Conference — an  extra  session  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence— that  you  did  make,  except  with  the  hope  that  maybe  we 
could  get  a  plan  that  we  could  submit.  Mr.  Chairman  and  breth- 
ren, those  of  us  who  for  the  years  since  1916  have  labored  over 
this  matter,  prayed  over  this  matter,  worked  over  this  matter, 
day  in  and  day  out,  talked  over  the  matter  and  listened  to  talk, 
cannot  come  to  this  meeting  with  any  other  than  feelings  of  the 
utmost  seriousness.  It  might  be  perfectly  easy  for  us  to  find  a 
way  not  to  do  this.  But  I  believe  I  speak  your  minds,  as  I  know 
I  speak  the  minds  of  my  own  immediate  brethren,  when  I  say,, 
with  the  world's  pressure  upon  us  that  there  has  been,  with  the 
spirit  upon  us  which  the  Centenary  has  helped  to  bring,  with 
the  new  confidence  that  the  years  of  counsel  have  brought,  it  is 
our  intense  and  passionate  prayer  that  God  may  guide  us  to  a 
safe  and  large  place  for  one  Church  of  the  living  God,  under 
the  name  of  Methodist,  at  this  hour.  I  thank  you  very  much* 
for  the  privilege  of  saying  these  words,  Mr.  Chairman  and 
brethren,  in  behalf  of  our  Commission. 

Bishop  Cranston:  What  is  your  pleasure,  brethren? 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  did  not  take  the  time  to  consult  Bishop 
Denny.  I  would  move,  if  I  were  not  on  that  Committee — but 
I  will  move  it  anyhow,  that  the  Committee  on  Procedure — was 
there  not  such  a  committee  of  which  you  were  Chairman? 

Bishop  Denny :  I  was  Chairman  of  such  a  committee ;  but 
Bishop  Mouzon  will  make  the  statement  for  our  Commission 
from  this  time  on. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  was  going  to  move,  simply  for  the  pur- 
pose of  getting  the  matter  before  us,  that  we  now  take  a  recess 
and  that  the  Committee  on  Procedure  take  under  consideration 


Cleveland  Meeting 


the  subject  of  procedure  and  report  to  us  at  the  beginning  of  the 
afternoon  session. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  I  move  that  when  we  adjourn  it  be  to  meet  at 
three  o'clock.  We  will  be  here  until  6  130  practically.  That  will 
give  three  and  a  half  hours,  which  will  be  about  as  long  as  we 
will  want  to  be  here. 

Bishop  Moore :  I  suggest  2 :3c 

Dr.  Lamar  accepted  this  suggestion,  and  it  was  voted  to  re- 
assemble at  2:30  p.m. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  was  moving  that  the  Committee  on  Pro- 
cedure be  requested  to  bring  in  a  plan  for  procedure  at  this 
afternoon's  session. 

Bishop  Cannon:  Some  of  us  do  not  know  what  committees 
you  have,  nor  the  membership  of  the  committees.  Could  we  have 
all  the  different  committees  which  we  have  constituted  here  read;, 
so  that  we  can  be  informed? 

Bishop  Denny:  I  should  be  obliged  if  Bishop  Mouzon  will 
make  the  official  statement,  from  our  side  of  jthe  committee. 

Bishop  Mouzon:  I  would  like  Dr.  Thomas,  the  Secretary,  to 
find,  if  he  can,  the  names  of  the  members  of  that  Commission 
and  announce  them. 

Bishop  Denny :  I  am  mistaken  in  my  understanding  of  the 
action  taken  by  our  Commission.  Our  Commission  passed  a 
resolution  and  formally  elected  a  Committee  on  Committees. 
My  understanding  of  that  was  that  so  far  as  we  were  concerned 
that  Committee  on  Committees  was  to  recommend  the  commit- 
tees to  represent  our  Commission.  The  Bishop  offered  the  reso- 
lution, and  I  would  like  to  know  what  was  intended.  If  that  is 
the  case,  I  am  not  a  member  of  any  committee. 

Bishop  Mouzon:  It  seems  that  there  must  be  some  misunder- 
standing, for  it  was  not  my  understanding  that  the  Southern 
Commission  took  action  looking  toward  the  creation  of  new 
committees  entirely.  A  committee  was  elected  to  which  was 
given  the  duty  of  electing  members  of  committees  where  such 
elections  were  necessary.  But  we  did  not  wipe  out  all  the  com- 
mittees that  we  had.  We  do  not  have  to  begin  ab  initio  with 
those  committees. 

Bishop  Cranston:  I  rather  think  that  is  a  question  to  be  de- 
cided in  the  Commission  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  think  this  matter,  however,  can  be  clari- 
fied if  you  are  willing.  Have  you  the  names  of  the  persons  who 
did  serve  on  this  Committee  of  Procedure? 

A.  W.  Harris :  It  seems  that  the  Procedure  Committee,  as  far 
as  the  Southern  Commission  is  concerned,  consists  of  the  same 
persons  who  were  called  the  Business  Committee;  and  prac- 
tically the  same  thing  is  true  of  our  Commission. 
18 


274   Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

Bishop  Cranston:  The  motion  before  you  is  the  request  to 
the  Committee  on  Procedure  to  make  a  report.  I  presume  that 
the  Chairman  will  be  able  to  determine  in  a  little  while  who  are 
members  of  these  respective  committees.  I  do  not  see  how  you 
can  call  the  meeting  here  until  you  know. 

T.  N.  Ivey :  It  is  undoubtedly  a  mistake,  the  statement  that  I 
am  on  that  committee.  I  am  sure  I  have  never  been  on  that 
committee. 

D.  G.  Downey :  I  think  I  can  recall  the  members  who  repre- 
sented the  Church,  South,  on  that  Committee  on  Procedure. 
They  were  Bishop  Denny,  Dr.  Lamar,  Dr.  Du  Bose,  Judge  Wal- 
ton, and  Mr.  Blackwell. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  was  not  present  Saturday  at  the  meeting  of 
our  Commission,  but  my  understanding  was  that  the  Committee 
on  Committees  was  appointed  for  the  purpose  of  examining  these 
committees  and  making  suggestions  as  to  readjustment,  owing 
perhaps  to  the  fact  that  there  had  been  a  number  of  new  mem- 
bers appointed  on  the  Commission,  and  that  this  Committee  on 
Committees  would  be  expected  to  propose  such  suggestions  as 
to  the  readjustment  of  these  committees  as  might  seem  wise. 
Therefore  I  suggest  to  our  brethren  that  that  Committee  on  Com- 
mittees be  given  a  list  of  members  of  the  committee;  and  our 
Committee  on  Committees  can  then  propose  such  readjustment 
of  our  names  as  we  see  fit.  Without  any  formal  action  of  our 
body,  I  make  that  statement. 

Bishop  Denny :  There  was  not  a  word  said  about  readjustment. 
But  our  Bishop  is  here  to  state  the  meaning  of  his  resolution 
which  was  adopted.  My  understanding  of  that  action  was  that 
we  did  extinguish  the  personnel  of  our  committees  and  adopt  a 
method  of  appointing  our  committees.  I  have  no  preference  at 
all,  but  am  simply  trying  to  follow  out  what  I  understood  to  be 
the  action  of  our  Commission. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  I  will  ask  the  members  of  the  Commission 
representing  the  Commission  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  to  meet  here  in  this  part  of  the  room  immediately  upon 
adjournment,  in  order  that  this  matter  may  be  determined;  and 
then  in  a  very  short  while  this  Committee  on  Procedure  will  be 
able  to  come  together. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  was  about  to  move  that  that  procedure 
take  place.  We  shall  need  to  make  one  change  in  the  personnel 
of  our  committee,  as  Judge  Rogers  is  absent.  I  will  move  that 
the  two  Commissions  shall  complete  their  respective  portions  of 
the  Committee  on  Organization  and  Procedure,  and  that  then 
the  committee  be  authorized  to  get  together  without  being 
obliged  to  be  reported  here. 

Bishop  Cranston :  It  will  be  perfectly  competent  and  con- 


Cleveland  Meeting 


275 


venient  now  to  fix  the  hour  and  place  of  meeting.  It  is  not  re- 
quired that  we  shall  have  to  reassemble. 

Bishop  McDowell :  So  I  assume,  then,  to  call  the  Committee 
on  Organization  and  Procedure  to  meet  at  12:30  p.m. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  wonder  if  we  cannot  get  together  at  12:15? 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  shall  be  glad  to  have  them  get  together 
whenever  they  are  composed. 

The  session  adjourned  at  12:12  p.m.,  with  the  benediction  pro- 
nounced by  Bishop  Denny. 

Afternoon  Session. 

At  2:37  p.m.  Bishop  Cranston  called  the  meeting  to  order. 

The  hymn,  "My  faith  looks  up  to  Thee,"  was  sung. 

Prayer  was  offered  by  Rev.  C.  C.  Selecman. 

The  roll  was  called  and  the  following  were  present:  Bishops 
Collins  Denny,  E.  D.  Mouzon,  J.  M.  Moore,  James  Cannon,  Jr., 
W.  N.  Ainsworth,  Earl  Cranston,  J.  W.  Hamilton,  W.  F.  Mc- 
Dowell, F.  D.  Leete,  R.  J.  Cooke.  Ministers:  F.  M.  Thomas, 
W.  J.  Young,  C.  M.  Bishop,  W.  D.  Bradfield,  T.  N.  Ivey,  A.  J. 
Lamar,  A.  F.  Watkins,  P.  H.  Linn,  C.  C.  Selecman,  J.  E.  Dickey, 
Edgar  Blake,  David  G.  Downey,  F.  M.  North,  J.  F.  Goucher, 
A.  J.  Nast,  Frank  Neff,  E.  M.  Randall,  C.  B.  Spencer,  J.  W. 
Van  Cleve,  J.  J.  Wallace.  Laymen:  M.  L.  Walton,  H.  N. 
Snyder,  P.  D.  Maddin,  R.  S.  Hyer,  J.  H.  Reynolds,  R.  E.  Black- 
well,  T.  D.  Samford,  J.  R.  Pepper,  H.  H.  White,  J.  G.  Mc- 
Gowan,  A.  W.  Harris,  C.  W.  Kinne,  Ira  E.  Robinson,  J.  R.  Joy, 
Alex.  Simpson,  Jr.,  C.  A.  Pollock,  E.  L.  Kidney. 

Bishop  Cranston :  We  will  have  the  journal  of  the  morning 
session. 

The  minutes  were  read,  and  with  slight  changes  were  approved. 

F.  M.  Thomas :  I  would  like  to  express,  in  the  name  of  the 
Commission  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  our  pro- 
found and  sincere  sympathy  at  your  loss  and  the  loss  of  the 
nation  in  the  death  of  Ex-Vice  President  Fairbanks.  Some  of 
us  knew  him  and  appreciated  him,  and  remember  the  profound 
interest  he  had  in  the  great  work  before  us.  He  was  also,  as 
you  know,  a  fraternal  messenger  from  your  Church  to  ours. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  am  very  sure  that  the  Commission  will 
allow  me  to  express  our  thanks  to  Dr.  Thomas  and  the  generous 
Church,  South,  for  this  expression.  Mr.  Fairbanks  was  one  of 
the  distinguished  citizens  of  the  country,  one  of  the  faithful 
members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  a  sincere  and  loyal 
patriot,  and  a  Christian  man  who  died  in  the  faith.  In  these 
days  of  political  stress  and  strain  we  greatly  miss  as  steady  and 
steadfast  a  man  as  Mr.  Fairbanks  was.  We  thank  £#u  very 
much  for  these  gracious  words. 


276    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

Bishop  Mouzon  took  the  chair  and  said:  Is  the  Committee 
on  Procedure  ready  to  report? 

Bishop  Moore :  The  Chairman  of  our  Commission  will  now 
announce  the  members  from  our  Commissi6n  before  we  make 
our  report. 

The  members  were  stated  to  be  Bishop  Moore,  W.  J.  Young, 
P.  H.  Linn,  P.  D.  Maddin,  and  J.  H.  Reynolds. 

Bishop  Moore :  The  committee  met  and  is  ready  to  report.  We 
have  two  items,  one  referring  to  committee  meetings  and  ad- 
journments, and  the  other  to  a  matter  of  business.  Dr.  Blake 
is  the  Secretary  of  the  committee  and  will  make  the  report. 

Edgar  Blake :  The  Committee  on  Procedure  met  at  12  130,  con- 
sisting of  Bishop  Moore,  Dr.  Linn,  Dr.  Young,  Mr.  Maddin, 
Mr.  Reynolds,  Bishop  McDowell,  Dr.  Downey,  Dr.  Joy,  Alex. 
Simpson,  Jr.,  and  Edgar  Blake.  Bishop  Moore  was  elected 
Chairman,  and  the  committee  voted  to  make  the  following  recom- 
mendations:  (1)  That  the  hours  of  meeting  be  fixed  as  follows: 
Morning  session,  9  to  12:30;  afternoon,  3  to  5:30.  (2)  Voted, 
that  a  Committee  of  Conference,  consisting  of  five  from  each 
Commission,  be  appointed  to  consider  and  report  upon  the  status 
of  the  negro  membership  in  the  reorganized  Church.  I  move 
that  the  report  be  received  and  considered  seriatim. 

This  motion  was  seconded  and  carried. 

Item  1  was  adopted. 

Item  2,  recommending  that  a  Committee  of  Conference,  con- 
sisting of  five  members  from  each  Commission,  be  appointed  to 
meet  and  consider  and  report  upon  the  status  of  the  negro  in 
the  reorganized  Church,  was  read  again. 

Bishop  Moore :  It  was  the  opinion  of  the  committee  that  we 
should  give  this  matter  first  consideration;  that  unless  we  could 
come  to  some  sort  of  agreement  on  the  status  of  the  negro  mem- 
bership in  the  united  Church,  we  could  not  very  well  go  forward. 
We  felt  that  this  issue  should  be  met  at  once,  and  that  the  best 
way  to  do  it  would  be  to  appoint  a  joint  committee  of  five  from 
each  Church  to  take  up  this  whole  matter  with  the  different  re- 
ports that  may  have  been  made  hitherto  and  any  propositions 
that  the  committeemen  themselves  might  make,  and  bring  back 
to  us  a  report  or  recommendation  for  our  consideration.  That 
would  mean,  of  course,  that  this  committee  would  be  appointed 
now  and  go  to  work  at  once.  Some  proposed  that  we  discuss 
other  matters  while  this  committee  should  be  out,  but  it  was  the 
opinion  of  the  committee  that  the  best  thing  to  do  is  simply  to 
give  this  whole  matter  over  to  a  committee  and  then  await  their 
report. 

Bishop  Cranston :  I  have  two  questions  at  this  point.  One  is 
whether  it  is  better  to  provide  such  a  committee  than  to  have 
meetings  of  the  Commission  separately  to  discuss  the  matter. 


Cleveland  Meeting 


277 


So  far  as  I  know,  it  is  a  matter  that  we  have  not  formally  con- 
sidered. Then,  if  there  is  to  be  a  committee,  I  think  it  ought 
to  be  a  larger  one — I  would  think  at  least  ten  from  each  Church 
— eight  or  ten  from  each  Church,  rather  than  five;  so  that  there 
may  be  a  wider  range  of  opinion  and  counsel.  I  am  not  going 
to  oppose  the  motion.  I  am  simply  giving  my  views  about  it. 
I  would  like  to  have  the  matter  canvassed  by  the  Commissions 
separately,  so  that  they  will  know  where  they  are.  It  will  come 
to  that  in  the  end.  The  Committee  on  Conference  will  report, 
and  then  we  shall  have  separate  meetings. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  think  it  was  thought  that  five  from  each 
Commission  could,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  they  would  be  ex- 
pected to  report  back  to  the  Commission  as  a  whole,  do  better 
than  if  the  number  were  larger.  We  talked  of  seven  from  each 
Commission,  and  finally  decided  upon  five,  as  in  the  interest  of 
promptness  and  efficiency  in  getting  a  report  back  to  this  body, 
in  which  the  whole  Joint  Commission  will  have  a  chance  to  con- 
sider the  report.   I  favor  the  suggestion  of  the  committee. 

Bishop  Hamilton:  I  think  we  can  adopt  one  of  Bishop  Cran- 
ston's suggestions.  I  am  quite  clear  in  my  own  mind  that  the 
selection  of  these  five  men  ought  not  to  be  left  to  the  Chairman 
of  the  committee,  but  that  it  would  be  well  for  us  separately  in 
the  Commissions  respectively  to  let  each  Commission  select  its 
own  five  persons  in  such  way  as  it  may  choose.  Then,  as  to  the 
other  matter  suggested  by  the  Bishop,  we  can  determine  that  as 
well  when  we  have  met  in  our  separate  Commissions.  If  we 
desire  to  discuss  that  matter  when  we  are  appointing  this  com- 
mittee in  order  to  indicate  to  them  what  might  be  the  view  that 
we  would  come  to  in  final  decision,  they  would  have,  if  not  in- 
structions, yet  suggestions  from  each  Commission  to  help  that 
Joint  Committee  decide  when  it  came  together.  After  the  pend- 
ing matter  is  settled,  I  propose  to  make  the  other  motion,  that 
we  separate  and  these  matters  be  considered  in  the  separate  Com- 
missions. 

Edgar  Blake:  Before  this  motion  is  put,  it  seems  to  me  that 
we  ought  to  have  an  understanding  that  the  committee  that  is  to 
consider  the  status  of  the  negro  should  be  permitted  to  take  under 
its  consideration  any  and  every  phase  of  unification  that  will  as- 
sist it  in  arriving  at  a  satisfactory  solution  of  the  negro  question. 

Bishop  Cranston :  I  thought  it  was  better  to  have  the  Joint 
Commission  fix  its  thought  upon  the  point  in  view  of  its  impor- 
tance^— that  is  all.  If  the  Commission  is  satisfied  with  the  propo- 
sition as  it  stands  now,  at  five  from  each  Commission,  I  shall  of 
course  be  in  the  same  situation  as  the  rest  of  you  when  the  re- 
port comes  in. 

The  second  item  of  the  report  as  read  above  was  adopted ;  and 
then  the  report  as  a  whole  was  adopted. 


278    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

Bishop  Moore :  I  think  it  desirable  that  we  should  now  take 
a  recess  in  order  that  each  Commission  might  make  the  appoint- 
ment of  its  own  committee. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  Dr.  Harris  has  a  paper  that  he  would  like 
to  present  before  we  proceed  to  this. 

A.  J.  Lamar :  I  do  not  see  that  it  is  necessary  for  our  whole 
Commission  to  meet  on  that.  Did  we  not  appoint  a  Committee 
on  Committees? 

A.  W.  Harris  presented  a  communication  signed  by  Dr.  Wil- 
liam F.  Warren.  He  read  only  the  letter  of  transmittal,  and  the 
communication  was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  Conference. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  move  that  the  Joint  Commission  do  now 
take  a  recess  to  enable  the  separate  Commissions  to  appoint  the 
Committee  of  Conference,  in  accord  with  the  resolutions  just 
passed.  It  seems  to  me  it  is  quite  sufficient  for  each  Commis- 
sion to  appoint  its  representation  on  this  Committee  on  Confer- 
ence, and  then  we  can  get  together  and  go  to  work.  Dr.  Blake 
suggests  that  the  Joint  Committee  on  Conference  be  authorized 
to  convene  as  soon  as  possible  in  this  place,  and  I  so  move. 

This  motion  prevailed. 

Bishop  Moore:  I  move  that  we  adjourn  to  nine  o'clock  to- 
morrow morning  unless  called  sooner. 
This  motion  prevailed. 

Each  Commission  was  called  to  meet  immediately  upon  ad- 
journment. 

The  afternoon  session  closed  with  the  benediction  pronounced 
by  Dr.  A.  J.  Lamar. 

SECOND  DAY,  TUESDAY,  JULY  8,  1919. 

The  Joint  Commission  was  called  to  order  by  Bishop  Mouzon. 
Dr.  David  G.  Downey  conducted  the  devotional  exercises. 
The  hymn,  "I  love  to  tell  the  story,"  was  sung. 
Dr.  Downey  read  the  sixty-third  Psalm. 
Prayer  was  offered  by  J.  R.  Pepper  and  Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. 
The  members  present  united  in  repeating  the  Lord's  Prayer. 
Secretary  Thomas  read  the  minutes  of  yesterday  afternoon's 
session,  which  were  approved. 
Bishop  Cranston  took  the  chair. 

The  roll  was  called  and  the  following  were  present :  Bishops 
Earl  Cranston,  J.  W.  Hamilton,  F.  D.  Leete,  R.  J.  Cooke,  Col- 
lins Denny,  E.  D.  Mouzon,  J.  M.  Moore,  James  Cannon,  Jr.,  W. 
N.  Ainsworth.  Ministers :  D.  G.  Downey,  J.  F.  Goucher,  R.  E. 
lones,  A.  J.  Nast,  Frank  Neff,  E.  M.  Randall,  F.  M.  North,  C.  B. 
Spencer,  J.  J.  Wallace,  W.  J.  Young,  C.  M.  Pishop,  W.  D.  Brad- 
field,  A.  J.  Lamar,  A.  F.  Watkins,  P.  H.  Linn,  C.  C.  Selecman, 


Cleveland  Meeting 


279 


J.  E.  Dickey.  Laymen:  A.  W.  Harris,  C.  W.  Kinne,  Ira  E. 
Robinson,  J.  R.  Joy,  Alex.  Simpson,  Jr.,  C.  A.  Pollock,  E.  L. 
Kidney,  M.  L.  Walton,  W.  J.  Snyder,  P.  D.  Maddin,  R.  S. 
Hyer,  J.  H.  Reynolds,  R.  E.  Blackwell,  T.  D.  Samford,  J.  R. 
Pepper,  H.  H.  White,  J.  G.  McGowan. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Is  any  committee  ready 
to  report? 

Bishop  Cannon :  Dr.  Blake  is  the  Secretary  of  the  Joint  Com- 
mittee constituted  yesterday,  and  I  wish  him  to  report. 

A.  W.  Harris:  I  think  the  Chairman,  Bishop  Cannon,  can  re- 
port. 

Bishop  Cannon:  As  the  names  of  the  members  from  each 
Church  should  be  placed  on  the  record,  I  can  call  them :  Bishop 
McDowell,  Dr.  Goucher,  Dr.  Blake,  Mr.  Simpson,  Mr.  Harris, 
Dr.  Thomas,  Dr.  Bradfield,  Judge  White,  Mr.  Maddin,  and  my- 
self from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  The  com- 
mittee organized  by  the  election  of  Bishop  Cannon  as  Chairman 
and  Dr.  Blake  as  Secretary.  The  committee  then  discussed  very 
informally  and  very  freely  (I  think  perhaps  it  would  not  be  a 
reflection  upon  us  to  say  very  sincerely)  the  question  that  was 
before  us.  And  we  adjourned  at  10:30  with  an  agreement  that 
we  would  request  the  Joint  Commission  when  it  met  this  morn- 
ing to  give  to  the  committee — I  should  say  the  thought  was  an 
hour.  Ten  o'clock  was  suggested.  But  it  is  now  nearly  9  30.  I 
think  the  thought  of  the  committee  was  that  we  should  have  at 
least  an  hour  this  morning  for  our  conference.  And  we  make 
that  request. 

D.  G.  Downey :  I  move  that  the  request  be  granted  and  that 
there  be  a  recess  until  eleven  o'clock. 
This  motion  prevailed  unanimously. 

Bishop  Cranston :  The  committee  is  in  recess  until  eleven 
o'clock. 

After  the  recess  the  Commission  reconvened  at  11 :50  a.m. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Let  the  Commission  come 
to  order.   Our  committee  has  made  its  appearance. 

Edgar  Blake:  In  the  absence  of  Bishop  Cannon,  the  Chair- 
man, the  Secretary  is  instructed  by  the  committee  to  say  that  the 
committee  is  ready  to  report,  or  will  be  ready  to  report  just  as 
soon  as  its  report  can  be  put  into  proper  form.  It  is  probable 
that  it  will  require  until  the  opening  of  the  afternoon  session  for 
that  work  to  be  done,  and  we  recommend  that  the  Joint  Com- 
mittee take  a  recess  until  2  30  this  afternoon,  at  which  time  the 
committee  will  be  ready  to  make  its  report.  I  move  that  the 
request  of  this  committee  be  granted,  and  that  we  adjourn  until 
2 :3o  this  afternoon. 

Bishop  Ainsworth:  Might  we  not  adjourn  to  meet  at  two 
o'clock  to-day,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  most  of  the  members  of 


280    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


this  body  have  not  had  very  much  to  do  through  the  morning  and 
therefore  could  afford  to  stay  a  little  longer  this  afternoon? 

Bishop  McDowell :  The  preparation  of  the  report  ought  to 
have  a  little  extra  time.  I  make  the  suggestion  2:30  in  behalf  of 
Bishop  Cannon. 

On  motion,  the  Commission  adjourned  until  2:30  p.m. 

The  benediction  was  pronounced  by  Bishop  Ainsworth. 

Afternoon  Session. 

The  meeting  was  called  to  order  at  2:35  p.m.  by  Bishop  Mc- 
Dowell. 

One  stanza  of  the  hymn,  "I  love  thy  kingdom,  Lord,"  was 
sung. 

Prayer  was  offered  by  Rev.  F.  M.  North. 

Secretary  Thomas  read  the  minutes  of  the  morning  session, 
which  were  approved. 

The  roll  was  called  and  the  following  were  present:  Bishops 
Earl  Cranston,  W.  F.  McDowell,  F.  D.  Leete,  R.  J.  Cooke,  Col- 
lins Denny,  E.  D.  Mouzon,  J.  M.  Moore,  James  Cannon,  Jr.,  W. 
N.  Ainsworth.  Ministers :  Edgar  Blake,  D.  G.  Downey,  J.  F. 
Goucher,  R.  E.  Jones,  A.  J.  Nast,  Frank  Neff,  E.  M.  Randall, 
C.  B.  Spencer,  J.  W.  Van  Cleve,  J.  J.  Wallace,  F.  M.  North, 
W.  J.  Young,  C.  M.  Bishop,  W.  D.  Bradfield,  T.  N.  Ivey,  A.  F. 
Watkins,  A.  J.  Lamar,  P.  H.  Linn,  C.  C.  Selecman,  J.  E.  Dickey. 
Laymen :  A.  W.  Harris,  C.  W.  Kinne,  E.  L.  Kidney,  Ira  E. 
Robinson,  Alex.  Simpson,  Jr.,  J.  R.  Joy,  C.  A.  Pollock,  M.  L. 
Walton,  H.  N.  Snyder,  P.  D.  Maddin,  J.  R.  Pepper,  R.  S.  Hyer, 
J.  H.  Reynolds,  R.  E.  Blackwell,  T.  D.  Samford,  H.  H.  White, 
J.  G.  McGowan. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Is  the  Committee  of  Con- 
ference ready  to  report? 

Bishop  Cannon :  Mr.  Chairman,  the  committee  is  ready  with 
its  report.  I  will  request  the  Secretary,  Dr.  Blake,  to  read  the 
action  taken  by  the  committee  by  majority  vote;  following  which 
a  statement  by  a  minority  will  be  read. 

Edgar  Blake:  The  following  action  was  taken  by  a  majority 
of  the  Committee  on  Conference: 

We  desire  to  propose  as  the  report  of  the  Joint  Commission  that  the 
colored  membership  of  the  Church  shall  be  constituted  and  recognized 
as  a  Quadrennial  or  Regional  Conference,  with  proportionate  representa- 
tion in  the  General  Conference. 

This  report  was  signed  by  the  Commissioners  from  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  and  by  W.  D.  Bradfield. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  desire  to  move  the  adoption  of  this  re- 
port as  thus  presented. 

Bishop  Cannon :  Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  present  the  statement 
of  the  minority  of  the  Committee: 


Cleveland  Meeting 


281 


Minority  Report  of  the  Committee  of  Conference  Concerning  the 
Status  of  the  Negro  in  the  Unified  and  Reorganized  Church. 

1.  We  suggest  that  there  be  the  following  Regional  Conferences: 

(1)  A  Regional  Conference  for  Colored  People. 

(2)  A  Regional  Conference  for  Latin  America. 

(3)  A  Regional  Conference  for  Europe. 

(4)  A  Regional  Conference  for  Eastern  Asia. 

(5)  A  Regional  Conference  for  Southern  Asia. 

2.  These  Regional  Conferences  shall  have  representation  in  the  General 
Conference  in  proportion  to  their  membership  in  full  standing;  provided, 
that  each  of  such  Regional  Conferences  shall  be  entitled  to  at  least  five 
clerical  and  five  lay  delegates.  Provided,  further,  that  the  number  of 
delegates  from  any  one  of  these  Conferences  shall  not  exceed  five  per 
cent  of  the  entire  membership  of  the  General  Conference. 

3.  These  Regional  Conferences  shall  have  the  powers  proposed  for  the 
Central  Conferences  as  contained  in  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Con- 
ference at  the  Savannah  session  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification. 

4.  Whenever  the  membership  in  full  standing  of  any  of  these  Regional 
Conferences  shall  exceed  four  hundred  thousand,  upon  request  of  said 
Conference,  the  General  Conference  shall  organize  the  membership  of 
said  Conference  into  an  Associate  General  Conference  with  the  powers 
proposed  for  such  Associate  General  Conference  in  the  report  of  the 
Committee  of  Conference  at  the  Savannah  meeting  of  the  Joint  Com- 
mission. Such  Associate  General  Conference  shall  have  representation 
in  the  General  Conference  of  ten  clerical  and  ten  lay  delegates,  with  the 
right  to  speak  and  vote  in  the  General  Conference  on  all  matters  which 
affect  their  relation  to  the  Church. 

5.  The  relation  of  these  Regional  Conferences  to  the  General  Con- 
ference may  be  changed  by  the  vote  of  two  successive  General  Confer- 
ences. 

Respectfully  submitted.  James  Cannon,  Jr., 

P.  D.  Maddin, 
F.  M.  Thomas, 
H.  H.  White. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  will  say  that  Judge  White  signed  the  paper, 
not  agreeing  absolutely  with  it  in  every  particular,  but  sufficiently 
for  him  to  feel  that  he  preferred  to  sign  it;  and  it  is  presented 
here  as  the  expression  of  the  views  of  the  minority  of  the  com- 
mittee. 

Bishop  Cranston :  The  significance  of  this  report  evidently  de- 
pends upon  the  associations  of  propositions  there.  I  would  like 
to  have  it  read  again.  Perhaps  others  sympathize  with  that 
feeling. 

Judge  White  stated  that  he  signed  the  report  with  the  under- 
standing that  the  best  designation  would  be  "Missionary  Regional 
Conference  for  Colored  People." 

Bishop  Cannon:  We  agreed  that  while  the  word  "missionary" 
was  not  used,  yet  the  placing  of  the  colored  people  in  the  same 
classification  as  Latin  America,  Europe,  Eastern  Asia,  and  South- 
ern Asia  did  indicate  that  it  was  missionary  jurisdiction.  Yet 


282    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

the  word  "missionary"  is  not  used,  because  it  might  be  offensive 
and  might  be  misunderstood. 

F.  M.  Thomas :  I  think  it  was  agreed  by  those  who  have  signed 
that  the  word  "missionary"  was  practically  in  it. 

P.  D.  Maddin :  I  understood  that  the  word  "missionary"  was 
to  be  left  out  for  the  reason  Bishop  Cannon  has  given.  That 
was  done,  after  the  other  committeemen  had  given  the  reasons 
why  they  objected  to  the  term  "missionary"  being  used. 

Bishop  Cannon:  I  have  no  objections  to  inserting  the  word 
"missionary"  in  order  that  it  may  stand  this  way,  and  then  if 
it  seems  wise  to  strike  it  out  it  can  be  done.  That  will  leave  the 
report  as  it  is. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Is  it  offered  as  a  substitute 
for  the  majority  report? 

Bishop  Cannon:  No.  But  I  have  no  objection  to  making  a 
formal  motion.  This  paper  has  not  been  presented  to  our  Com- 
mission at  all  for  any  action  of  our  Commission  thereon.  It 
has  not  been  read  since  our  committee  stated  the  substance  of 
it  to  our  Commission.  A  gentleman  asked  me  that  question, 
and  I  am  making  this  statement  for  that  reason. 

Bishop  Moore :  I  would  be  very  glad  that  these  two  reports 
should  not  come  in  as  majority  and  minority  reports.  It  would 
be  a  pity  to  pit  one  against  the  other.  I  would  like  for  them  to 
come  in  as  two  reports  from  the  Committee,  signed  as  they  have 
been,  one  by  six  and  the  other  by  four;  that  the  two  might  be 
before  us  and  we  could  send  them  to  our  various  Commissions 
and  discuss  them  and  then  come  back  with  them. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  I  know  of  no  parliamentary 
usage  that  would  justify  that. 

Bishop  Moore:  We  could  make  some. 

Bishop  McDowell :  That,  Mr.  Chairman,  shows  a  right  kind 
of  new  bishop.   When  a  precedent  does  not  exist,  make  one! 

C.  B.  Spencer :  Mr.  Chairman,  I  rise  to  ask  a  question  for  per- 
sonal information.  I  was  not  quite  certain,  in  hearing  Bishop 
Cannon's  report,  as  to  whether  the  negro  membership  included 
the  negro  members  in  Africa,  for  example,  as  well  as  in  this 
country. 

Bishop  Cannon :  Yes,  sir. 

C.  B.  Spencer:  Let  me  ask  also,  Does  it  include  the  negro 
members  that  might  be  in  Brazil  and  elsewhere  in  South  Amer- 
ica? 

Bishop  Cannon:  No,  sir.    In  this  country  and  Africa. 

W.  D.  Bradfield :  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not  know  just  what  the 
wisest  procedure  would  be,  but  I  trust  we  will  induce  Bishop 
McDowell  to  speak.    My  own  personal  preference  was — 

At  this  point  it  was  asked  that  Bishop  Cannon  re-read  the  re- 
port, which  was  done. 


Cleveland  Meeting 


283 


-  Bishop  Cranston :  I  noticed  a  discrepancy  between  the  two 
readings.  First,  it  was  said  that  they  might  ask  and  be  organ- 
ized; secondly,  that  the  General  Conference  shall  organize. 

Bishop  Cannon :  No.  Whenever  the  membership  shall  exceed 
four  hundred  thousand,  upon  request  of  said  Conference  the 
General  Conference  shall  organize. 

Bishop  Cranston :  My  hearing  is  not  so  good  as  it  was  once ;  but 
I  am  very  apt  to  hear  the  things  I  want  to  hear! 

W.  D.  Bradfield:  I  arose  to  say  that  I  very  frankly  told  the 
Committee  of  Conference  that  it  would  be  much  more  likely  that 
we  would  get  this  paper  signed  by  our  four  brethren,  through 
our  Church;  and  only  when  assured  by  Bishop  McDowell  that 
after  a  very  careful  and  brotherly  and  prayerful  consideration 
of  the  subject  our  Commissioners  from  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  cannot  agree  to  anything  less  than  proportionate  rep- 
resentation— I  said  then,  "For  unification  I  am  willing  to  sub- 
mit the  question  of  proportionate  representation  to  our  own 
Church,  South."  Now,  I  believe  that  the  most  helpful  procedure 
at  this  point  would  be  a  careful  statement  by  Bishop  McDowell 
of  the  situation  in  this  region  of  our  great  country,  and  a  like- 
wise statement  from  Bishop  Cannon  of  the  situation  in  the  region 
South.  We  are  here,  brethren,  not  as  diplomats.  We  are  here 
as  counselors.  We  are  here,  I  believe,  every  man  of  us,  with  an 
open  mind.  And  I  am  sure,  I  am  sure  that  the  disposition  is  not 
in  the  heart  of  any  Southern  man  to  make  conditions  difficult 
and  hard  for  our  brethren  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
and  I  am  equally  sure  that  there  is  not  any  desire  in  the  heart 
of  any  of  our  brethren  in  the  North  to  make  the  conditions  hard 
for  the  Southern  Church.  I  am  sure  that  we  feel  that  unification 
ought  to  come.  I  am  sure  that  we  had  a  practical  demonstration 
in  the  Centenary  of  what  a  united  effort  will  bring.  I  am  sure 
that  every  heart  and  mind  here  is  open  to  the  call  of  the  ruined 
and  distressed  world.  And  I  am  sure,  brethren,  that  we  feel 
that  our  Methodism  in  America  is  to  be  the  leader  in  the  recon- 
struction and  in  the  redemption  of  this  world.  Now,  some  days 
ago  I  saw  in  the  daily  press  a  statement  from  one  of  our  colored 
editors  in  the  North,  commenting  upon  the  fact  that  a  labor 
union  had  received  the  negroes  into  its  membership,  comment- 
ing upon  the  fact  that  the  negro  must  turn  to  economic  and  in- 
dustrial organizations  rather  than  a  hypocritical  Church  for 
liberty  and  for  leadership.  I  believe  the  day  has  come  when  a 
united  Methodism  ought  to  put  its  hand,  a  brother's  hand,  into 
the  hands  of  our  colored  brethren,  and  not  relegate  them  to 
socialistic  leadership  in  this  land  of  ours.  I  move  that  we  have 
this  brotherly  statement  from  dear  Bishop  McDowell,  and  from 


284    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

our  good  Bishop  Cannon,  that  we  may  see  with  brothers'  eyes 
just  what  the  situation  is  in  each  section  of  our  country. 

This  motion  was  seconded,  and  prevailed  without  dissent. 

Bishop  McDowell :  Mr.  Chairman,  the  persons  who  have  served 
on  this  Commission  for  the  last  two  or  three  years  will  recognize 
this  as  rather  an  extraordinary,  if  not  superfluous,  procedure, 
that  the  Commission  should  feel  obliged  to  request  me  to  speak, 
in  order  to  get  a  speech  out  of  me !  It  must  seem  very  strange 
to  those  of  you  who  have  come  all  the  way  since  Baltimore ! 
Evidently,  only  a  new  member  of  the  committee  would  have 
suggested  such  a  course.  I  may  say,  with  all  frankness  and  un- 
affectedness,  that  this  is  so  sudden  and  so  unexpected  that  I  am 
hardly  prepared  to  respond  to  it.  I  had  supposed  that  the  debate 
would  proceed  in  a  somewhat  regular  way,  and  that  I  might 
take  my  part  in  it  at  such  time  as  would  seem  wise  to  me,  not 
necessarily  at  such  time  as  might  seem  wise  to  the  Commission. 
But,  Mr.  Chairman  and  brethren,  I  am  wholly  willing  to  make 
an  endeavor  to  respond  to  the  motion  that  you  have  just  passed, 
fearing  that  I  shall  omit  many  things  that  I  ought  to  say  and  may 
say  imperfectly  some  things  that  will  find  expression,  but  sin- 
cerely desiring  to  come  to  the  heart  of  the  matter  by  the  most 
direct  and  simple  process  and  way.  We  have  had  a  very  large 
amount  of  very  able  discussion  of  this  profound  question.  Re- 
reading, as  I  have  done  recently,  the  debate  that  took  place  at 
Savannah,  I  desire  to  record  my  immense  admiration  for  the 
candor  and  the  frankness,  the  whole  spirit  of  that  debate.  We 
did  not  agree;  but  very  few  words,  if  any,  were  said  by  any  per- 
son there  present  which  he  would  not  be  willing,  I  think,  to  have 
his  descendants  read  in  all  the  years  to  come.  And  that  is  a  very 
high  tribute  to  the  debate  on  so  difficult  a  subject  as  this.  Now, 
in  the  course  of  that  debate  and  in  the  course  of  our  voting  and 
consultation  back  and  forth,  a  good  many  different  propositions, 
first  one  and  then  another,  were  made.  These  propositions  were 
all  made  with  the  sincere  desire  to  find,  if  possible,  a  way 
through  the  difficulty  that  we  all  felt.  They  were  not  final  ex- 
pressions of  our  judgment.  If  we  should  be  told  that  at  Savan- 
nah we  made  such  and  such  propositions,  we  should  answer 
"Yes";  and  we  should  reply  that  a  good  many  propositions  have 
been  made  since  Baltimore  which  are  not  now  before  us.  For 
there  has  been  nothing  more  marked  in  the  whole  history  of  our 
negotiations  than  the  general  growth  and  expansion  and  clarifi- 
cation of  our  views.  Now  we  have  come  up  to  this  session  of 
the  Joint  Commission.  The  Committee  on  Conference  met,  with 
five  brethren  from  each  Commission ;  and  each  member  of  that 
committee  talked  out  frankly  and  fully  his  present  view  of  this 
particular  question — namely,  the  status  of  the  negro  in  the 
united  Church.    We  did  not  talk  out  at  length  the  relation  of 


Cleveland  Meeting 


that  vital  question  to  many  others.  It  seemed  to  the  Commis- 
sioners from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  that  the  time  had 
come  for  us  to  face  this  simple  question.  And  if  I  may  repeat 
here  what  I  tried  to  say  there,  I  tried  to  state  the  question  in 
substantially  these  words:  "Can  the  Commission  from  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South,  accept,  in  accord  with  the  sug- 
gestion of  the  Federal  Council  at  Chattanooga,  a  Regional  Con- 
ference for  the  negro  membership  with  proportionate  representa- 
tion in  the  General  Conference?  Can  the  General  Conference  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  conscious  of  its  respon- 
sibilities to  the  South,  conscious  of  the  conditions  in  which  it 
does  its  work  in  the  South,  obedient  to  Jesus  Christ  and  wanting 
to  do  his  will  in  the  world — can  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  accept  that  arrangement? 
Can  the  Annual  Conferences  in  Mississippi  and  Alabama  and 
Georgia  and  elsewhere  in  the  South  accept  such  arrangement 
and  go  forward  with  their  work  among  the  people  whom  in 
God's  providence  they  are  sent  to  serve?"  That  serious  question 
is  asked  upon  one  side.  The  other  serious  question  would  be 
this:  "Can  the  members  of  the  Commission  from  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  stand  for  and  accept  and  recommend  anything 
less  than  that?  Can  we  discharge  our  legal,  our  moral  obliga- 
tions to  the  negro  members  who  belong  to  our  Church  on  any 
other  basis  than  that?  Can  the  General  Conference  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  with  the  history  of  that  Church  behind 
it,  with  the  task  of  that  Church  before  it  in  America  and  in 
Africa,  with  our  missionary  endeavor  pressing  down  upon  us, 
with  our  acute  consciousness  of  the  race  conflict  in  America  and 
the  world — can  we  stand  for  and  accept  anything  less  than  pro- 
portionate representation  in  the  General  Conference  for  the 
negro  membership?"  Now,  Mr.  Chairman  and  dear  brethren, 
those  were  the  questions  that  were  laid  down.  And  those  were 
the  questions  which,  with  a  kind  of  candor  that  warms  my  heart 
to  remember,  with  a  brotherly  kindness  that  I  shall  carry  the 
memory  of  through  my  lifetime — those  are  the  questions,  in  them- 
selves and  in  their  reach  and  in  their  implication,  that  we  have 
tried  to  answer.  That  we  have  two  reports  is  due  to  the  fact 
that  a  part  of  the  Committee  of  Conference  felt  that  it  could 
only  answer  these  questions  in  the  one  way,  and  a  part  of  the 
committee  felt  that  it  could  answer  them  only  in  the  other  way, 
and  all  of  us  alike  sincerely  desiring  the  same  thing — namely, 
the  unification  of  the  Church  and  the  glory  of  God  and  the 
strength  of  our  Church  in  all  the  world.  Now,  I  understand  that 
at  this  time  you  do  not  desire  anything  more  from  me  than  a 
simple  statement  as  to  the  processes  that  went  forward  in  the 
committee,  and  do  not  desire  from  me  at  this  time  an  argument 
as  to  why  I  favor  the  majority  report  as  presented.    If  this 


286    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

does  state  the  case  in  accord  with  Dr.  Bradfield's  wishes,  I  am 
very  glad.  If  this  is  not  quite  what  you  want,  Dr.  Bradfield,  I 
am  very  sorry. 

W.  D.  Bradfield :  It  is  not  quite.  I  did  not  want  an  argument. 
I  just  want  those  reasons  that  had  convinced  you  why  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  could  not  take  less  than  this.  I  did  not 
want  an  argument;  I  did  not  want  a  discussion — just  a  statement 
of  the  situation  here  and  down  yonder. 

Bishop  McDowell :  With  your  permission,  I  will  be  very  glad 
to  go  on  a  moment  to  state  the  reasons.  These  reasons  have  al- 
ready been  well  and  fully  stated  in  the  elaborate  debates  that 
have  taken  place  before.  We  felt  that  now  we  ought  to  meet 
this  question  in  a  simple  and  uncomplicated  way,  detached  from 
everything  else.  That  is  why  we  submitted  just  the  simple 
proposition,  without  tying  it  up  with  the  elaborate  arrangements 
for  dealing  with  other  issues,  like  the  Church  in  Europe,  the 
Church  in  Asia,  the  Church  in  Latin  America.  It  was  felt  that 
we  had  come  so  far  now  that  we  ought  to  look  at  this  simple 
question:  Can  we  offer  less,  can  you  accept  this?  Now,  Mr. 
Chairman,  the  reasons  that  convinced  us  that  we  should  not  offer 
less  are,  among  others,  these :  ( I )  The  legal  rights  and  standing 
of  our  negro  membership,  which  cannot  be  abridged  or  disre- 
garded by  us.  (2)  Our  historic  attitude  and  our  sense  of  our 
moral  obligation  in  view  of  our  history,  in  view  of  our  relations 
to  the  negro  people,  in  view  of  our  desire  to  do  our  missionary 
work  among  them,  in  view  of  our  whole  theory  of  the  Church 
of  Christ,  convinced  us  that  we  could  not  offer  less.  (3)  Our 
conviction  that  in  the  present  state  of  American  life,  with  the 
increased  sensitiveness  between  the  white  race  and  the  black 
race  in  America,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  ought  not  to 
help  to  add  to  the  chasm  between  those  two  races.  And  that 
feeling  we  have  quite  as  strongly  for  the  South  as  for  any  other 
part  of  the  country.  We  have  it  particularly  also  for  ourselves, 
because  great  numbers  of  negroes  have  come  into  the  North. 
(4)  And  we  felt  that  we  could  accept  no  less  and  face  our  mis- 
sionary task,  our  missionary  purpose,  and  our  missionary  ambi- 
tion and  aspirations,  now  mightily  enlarged  by  the  success  of  the 
Centenary  movement.  It  seemed  to  us  that  for  us  to  do  this 
would  stop,  in  part  if  not  in  whole,  would  seriously  complicate 
the  whole  avenue  of  our  approach  to  the  black  population  of  the 
world ;  and  that  we  are  not  willing  to  do.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman, 
the  rest  of  all  the  reasons  are  in  the  minds  of  all  of  us,  but  these 
are  the  things  that  we  have  in  our  minds  now.  We  do  not  pre- 
tend, Mr.  Chairman,  to  determine  what  is  duty  for  anybody  but 
ourselves.  We  do  not  pretend  to  determine  what  anybody  else's 
obligations  and  responsibilities  are.  I  may  be  going  beyond  my 
province  just  now  in  saying  that  if  you  should  take  a  wholly 


Cleveland  Meeting 


287 


different  view  we  should  know  in  our  hearts  that  you  were  tak- 
ing that  wholly  different  view  under  a  sense  of  duty  and  obliga- 
tion just  as  strong  as  that  which  rules  us.  It  is  in  that  spirit 
that  we  have  conducted  our  negotiations,  it  is  in  that  spirit  that 
we  present  the  report  now.   Thank  you  very  much. 

Bishop  Cannon :  Mr.  Chairman  and  brethren,  I  hardly  think  it 
necessary  to  insist  or  to  emphasize  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  desires  the  unification  of  the  two  Churches, 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South.  Our  leaders  are  men  of  sufficient  vision  to 
recognize  that  Methodism  has  a  great  responsibility  in  the  world 
to-day,  and  that  God  has  indicated  our  duty  to  the  world  of 
Protestant  Christendom  in  carrying  on  aggressive  warfare 
against  sin  in  this  country,  in  Europe,  and  in  all  the  world.  I 
do  not  think  that  anything  need  be  said  to  emphasize  the  sense 
of  responsibility  which  is  felt  by  the  members  of  our  Commis- 
sion on  that  point.  We  know,  as  Secretary  Daniels  said  so  forci- 
bly at  Columbus  last  Saturday,  that  Methodism  is  the  Church 
that  leads  in  all  the  great  reform  movements  in  this  country,  and 
that  we  are  recognized  as  a  militant  Church  against  all  forms 
of  sin.  And  we  are  feared  as  no  other  Church  is  feared  by  the 
hosts  of  wickedness.  We  know  also  that  if  Roman  Catholicism 
is  to  be  met  in  this  country  and  in  Europe,  Methodism  must  lead 
the  van ;  and  I  am  more  deeply  convinced  than  ever,  than  I  was 
at  the  Oklahoma  General  Conference  or  at  the  General  Confer- 
ence in  Atlanta,  that  we  ought  to  go  to  the  extreme  limit  of  our 
convictions  in  order  to  attain  this  unification.  I  believe  there  is 
only  one  question  to  be  asked  by  each  of  us  here,  and  that  is, 
"What  will,  what  policy  will,  what  course  will  best  advance  the 
interests  of  the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth ?"  In  an  article  that 
I  wrote  some  years  ago  on  this  subject,  and  in  some  other  articles 
since,  I  have  stated  very  frankly  that  I  thought  this  was  a  mat- 
ter of  the  highest  Christian  expediency,  that  I  thought  the  sep- 
aration in  1844  was  a  matter  of  Christian  expediency,  and  that 
our  fathers  acted  wisely  and  for  the  best  interests  of  Methodism 
in  both  sections  of  our  great  country  when  they  decided  that 
they  could  best  do  the  work  that  God  had  called  Methodism  to 
do,  in  two  organizations  rather  than  in  one.  Now,  to-day,  the 
question  of  expediency  confronts  us  again.  What  is  best  for 
the  kingdom  of  God?  For  us  to  unite  or  to  stay  apart?  And 
if  we  agree  that  it  is  best  to  unite,  what  plan  can  we  adopt  that 
will  secure  the  best  possible  results?  Well,  our  General  Con- 
ference in  Atlanta  recognized,  just  as  this  Commission  does  to- 
day, that  the  question  which  must  be  settled  was  the  question 
of  the  status  of  the  negroes  in  the  Church;  just  as  in  a  measure 
that  was  the  question  in  1844 — not  constitutionally,  but  as  an  in- 
cidental question  that  threw  the  whole  Church  into  a  ferment. 


288    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

And  our  General  Conference  at  Atlanta  certainly  expressed  its 
great  concern  about  this  matter  in  such  fashion  that  the  dele- 
gates from  our  Church  cannot  hesitate  in  agreeing  to  go  farther 
perhaps  than  our  Church  has  ever  gone  before.  The  General 
Conference  at  Atlanta  had  before  it  two  reports,  the  majority 
and  the  minority,  and  in  the  minority  report  there  were  two 
paragraphs  concerning  the  status  of  the  negro  in  the  unified 
Church.  One  said  that  no  further  action  looking  to  unification 
is  proper  to  be  taken  by  us  until  such  time  as  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  has  taken  proper  and  suitable  action  with  ref- 
erence to  the  negro  question.  The  next  paragraph  said  that  we 
believe  it  due  to  Christian  candor  to  say  that  our  Church  cannot 
safely  depart  from  the  policy  that  it  has  followed  since  the  or- 
ganization of  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Amer- 
ica in  1870,  with  reference  to  Methodism  in  the  United  States, 
and  cannot  accept  any  plan  of  unification  which  would  tend  to 
weaken  its  interest  in  or  withdraw  its  interest  from  the  said 
Church,  to  which  we  are  bound  by  the  most  sacred  obligation. 
After  a  very  full  discussion  of  that  minority  report  in  the  Com- 
mittee on  Church  Relations  it  was  voted  down  by — well,  I  think 
perhaps  that  only  the  signers  voted  for  it;  there  may  have  been 
two  or  three  more  who  favored  the  report.  And  when  it  came 
to  the  General  Conference,  so  determined,  as  I  understand  it, 
was  the  General  Conference  that  our  Commission  should  not  be 
hampered  with  positive  instructions  on  this  question,  that  they 
should  be  free  to  negotiate,  to  discuss,  to  bring  back  the  best 
plan  they  could,  that  the  minority  report  was  finally  withdrawn, 
because  the  framers  of  it  saw  that  there  was  no  chance  at  all  for 
its  adoption.  And  the  majority  report  was  adopted  with  a  vote 
against  it,  I  think,  of  perhaps  only  six  or  eight.  Before  that 
happened,  however,  Dr.  J.  O.  Willson  offered  a  resolution  as 
follows:  "We  further  instruct  our  Commission  that  the  welfare 
of  the  South  and  the  fixed  opinions  of  the  great  body  of  our 
people  make  it  very  necessary,  if  the  peace  of  our  Zion  is  to  be 
preserved,  not  to  vary  from  the  Oklahoma  declaration  as  to  the 
place  of  the  negro  in  unified  Methodism,  and  that  we  must  take 
care  of  the  interests  of  all  Methodism  in  this  country."  That 
resolution  did  endeavor  to  bind  the  Commission  to  the  Okla- 
homa declaration,  so  that  they  could  not  vary  from  it  at  all. 
That  resolution  was  laid  on  the  table  by  a  great  majority.  I 
felt  therefore,  in  acting  on  this  committee  to  which  I  have  been 
appointed  by  my  brethren,  free  to  follow  out  what  I  thought  to 
be  the  attitude  of  our  Southern  Methodism  on  this  question. 
And  while  I  said  frankly  at  Oklahoma  that  I  thought  the  plan 
we  proposed  was  the  better  plan,  that  the  negroes  should  be  in 
an  independent  organization  with  the  closest  possible  fraternal 
relations  to  our  Church  (and  I  still  think  that  that  is  the  better 


Cleveland  Meeting  289 

plan),  yet,  as  the  brethren  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
say  frankly,  flatly,  that  that  is  an  impossible  proposition,  that 
they  have  a  negro  membership  in  their  Church  which  is  not  will- 
ing to  be  set  apart  in  an  independent  organization,  and  that  they 
cannot  withdraw  themselves  from  their  negro  membership  (and 
I  agree  to  that ;  I  understand  their  position ;  I  do  not  think  they 
can),  we  are  faced,  therefore,  with  the  fact  that  they  cannot 
withdraw,  that  the  colored  brethren  are  unwilling  to  go  into  this 
independent  organization,  and  therefore  if  we  are  going  to  stand 
for  that  position  we  might  as  well  discontinue  negotiations  now 
and  wait  for  another  time.  I  do  not  think  our  Church  meant 
that.  I  do  not  think  our  General  Conference  meant  that.  There 
may  be  brethren  on  our  Commission  who  do  think  that.  But  I 
do  not.  And  in  acting  on  this  Committee  of  Conference,  I  have 
tried  to  represent  what  I  think  is  the  view  of  our  Church.  I 
say  this  because  it  may  not  be  clear  to  some  brethren  of  the 
Commission  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  They  may  not 
recognize  that,  in  presenting  this  report  which  we  have  pre- 
sented, we  have  gone  further  to  meet  them  on  this  question  than 
we  have  ever  gone  before.  In  fact,  the  records  show  that  with 
very  minor  variations  this  is  exactly  the  proposition  that  your 
Commission  presented  to  our  Commission  at  St.  Louis,  when 
the  Savannah  proposition  had  been  at  last  laid  aside,  if  not  voted 
down,  and  your  Commission  presented  practically  this  proposi- 
tion to  our  Commission.  And  it  was  sent  down  to  our  General 
Conference  in  this  document  for  us  to  consider,  along  with  other 
actions  taken  by  that  Commission.  We  have  practically  agreed 
to  their  proposition.  And  why  have  we  been  willing  to  do  that? 
How  could  our  Commission  or  our  committee  agree  to  that 
position?  Well,  because  we  think  that  this  paper  does  recognize 
what  we  consider  to  be  fundamental,  and  what  we  think  is  in 
accord  with  the  position  taken  in  the  past  by  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church.  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  agrees  with  us 
that  the  negroes  should  have  separate  congregations;  and  that 
is  your  practice.  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  agrees  with 
us  that  the  negroes  should  have  separate  Conferences;  and  that 
is  your  practice.  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  proposing 
to  adopt  the  Chattanooga  platform,  which  provides  that  the 
negroes  shall  be  in  a  separate  Regional  Conference.  That  is  the 
proposition  presented  to  us  to-day.  Now,  those  three  things  in- 
dicate very  clearly  that  both  Churches  are  agreed  that  the  negro 
is  not  to  be,  in  the  unified  Church,  in  exactly  the  same  relation 
as  the  white  membership.'  No  question  about  that  at  all.  We 
all  are  agreed  on  that  by  our  practice  and  by  the  proposition 
that  is  now  made  up.  He  is  in  a  different  relation — namely,  he 
is  by  himself,  so  far  as  his  local  activities  are  concerned. 
19 


290    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

Bishop  McDowell :  Mr.  Chairman,  if  Bishop  Cannon  will 
allow  me,  I  would  not  like  that  statement  to  go,  with  the  under- 
standing that  it  is  accepted  as  an  accurate  interpretation  of  the 
relation  of  the  negro  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.   T  do  not  care  to  do  more  than  say  that. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  am  very  frank  to  say  that  I  had  no  inten- 
tion of  not  stating  what  I  understood  to  be  the  fact — namely, 
that  the  negroes  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  do  have 
separate  congregations — 

Bishop  McDowell :  They  do. 

Bishop  Cannon :  Do  have  separate  Annual  Conferences — 
Bishop  McDowell:  They  do. 

Bishop  Cannon:  And  that  the  proposition  of  the  Chattanooga 
plan  is  that  they  shall  have  a  separate  Regional  Conference. 

Bishop  McDowell :  It  is  also  true  that  the  white  people  have 
separate  Regional  Conferences. 

Bishop  Cannon :  He  is  put  in  a  separate  Regional  Conference, 
just  exactly  as  the  white  membership  is  in  separate  Regional 
Conferences ;  but  the  fact  that  he  is  placed  in  separate  congre- 
gations and  is  in  separate  Conferences,  and  that  we  propose  to 
put  him  in  a  separate  Regional  Conference — that  fact  clearly 
indicates  that  there  must  be  some  reason  why  this  procedure  is 
followed.  We  of  our  Commission  think  that  that  procedure  is 
wise  because  we  think  the  negro  is  still,  first,  largely  a  mission- 
ary proposition;  that  the  negro  is  an  immature  race;  that  the 
negro  is  a  child  race;  that  he  should  be  dealt  with  from  the 
missionary  viewpoint — not  every  individual,  not  every  single 
Church,  but  as  a  mass ;  that  while  one  negro  Church  may  develop, 
or  the  negro  may  develop  in  one  section,  yet  for  the  negro  as 
a  mass  this  Regional  Conference  which  we'  are  proposing  is 
what  is  best  for  him  and  is  to  our  view  similar  to  what  we  pro- 
pose for  the  Mexicans,  the  Brazilians,  and  the  inhabitants  of 
Argentina;  people  who  have  equally  as  much  civilization  as  the 
negro,  but  who  are  distinctly  missionary  so  far  as  the  relation 
of  the  Church  to  them  is  concerned.  We  propose,  therefore, 
that  the  negro  shall  be  placed  in  one  of  these  Regional  Confer- 
ences, just  as  are  the  Latin  American  people  and  the  people  of 
Europe  and  the  people  of  Eastern  Asia  and  the  people  of  South- 
ern Asia.  And  that  he  shall  be  given  a  representation  in  the 
General  Conference  that  is  limited  at  both  ends — namely,  that 
he  shall  not  have  less  than  a  certain  number,  and  that  he  shall 
not  have  more  than  a  certain  number.  Why  should  we  put  that 
limitation?  Because  we  do  not  think  that  it  is  wise  to  bring 
into  the  General  Conference  a  larger  proportion  of  delegates 
than  five  per  cent  from  this  Colored  Regional  Conference,  and 
from  those  other  Missionary  Regional  Conferences,  giving  as  a 
maximum  of  those  people,  who  differ  from  us  in  race  and  in 


Cleveland  Meeting 


291 


habits  and  in  methods  of  thought,  no  more  than  25  per  cent, 
we  may  say,  of  the  total  membership  of  the  General  Conference. 
We  from  the  South  are  willing  to  agree  that  the  colored  man 
shall  have  his  Regional  Conference,  just  as  we  do,  and  that  he 
shall  come  into  the  white  General  Conference,  but  with  the  rep- 
resentation that  is  suited  to  his  immaturity,  his  lack  of  develop- 
ment, his  missionary  relationship.  And  now,  to  us  of  the  South- 
ern Church  that  is  a  question  just  as  much  of  moral  right,  of 
moral  sense,  as  it  is  for  you  brethren  a  question  of  moral  right 
when  Bishop  McDowell  states  that  the  negro  is  entitled  to  full 
representation  without  any  limitation  whatever.  We  honestly 
believe  that  it  is  best  for  the  negro,  that  it  is  best  for  the  white 
man,  that  there  shall  be  that  difference  so  long  as  the  negro 
is  in  the  present  immature  state  and  so  long  as  he  is  largely  a 
missionary  proposition.  Your  Church  figures  will  show  that 
the  Freedman's  Aid  Society  and  Home  Mission  Board  are  pour- 
ing money  out  for  the  development  of  your  Negro  Conferences ; 
just  as  we  are  pouring  money  out  for  our  Mexicans  on  the  bor- 
der and  for  other  Mexican  work,  so  you  are  pouring  out  mis- 
sionary money.  They  are  clearly  still,  as  a  mass,  a  missionary 
field,  a  missionary  people.  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say,  brethren, 
that  I  think  it  will  be  far  better  for  the  negro  and  far  better 
for  the  white  people  if  the  Churches  unite.  I  believe  that  the 
opportunity  for  friction  will  be  greatly  abated  thereby.  I  be- 
lieve that  the  man  who,  either  in  the  black  race  or  in  the  white 
race,  desires  simply  to  stir  up  racial  questions  for  some  personal 
reason  will  find  little  field  for  such  conduct  when  the  Church  is 
unified  and  reorganized  as  we  are  proposing.  I  think  there  will 
be  a  very  great  gain  for  both  negroes  and  whites  by  this  method 
that  we  are  proposing  to  follow.  Now  as  to  the  expediency  of 
it.  I  told  the  committee,  first,  and  I  say  here  just  what  I  said 
there,  that  if  I  were  convinced  that  the  plan  proposed  by  the 
majority  report  here  would  be  adopted  by  your  Church  and  by 
our  Church,  and  that  the  plan  we  proposed  could  not  be  adopted 
by  your  Church  even  if  it  were  adopted  by  our  Church,  I  desire 
the  unification  of  Methodism  so  greatly  that  I  might  be  able 
finally  to  vote  for  that  plan.  But  I  do  not  believe  it.  I  believe 
that  the  possibility  for  the  adoption  of  the  plan  proposed  by  the 
majority  report  is  very  much  less  than  the  possibility  of  adopt- 
ing the  plan  proposed  by  the  minority.  I  say  frankly  that  there 
will  be  a  very  great  deal  of  objection  even  to  this  plan  among 
many  of  our  people.  They  will  say  that  it  is  giving  the  negro 
representation  in  the  General  Conference,  and  until  they  get  to 
the  bottom  of  it  they  may  say  "proportionate"  representation. 
And  we  must  answer  that  by  saying  "No,  it  is  proportionate  rep- 
resentation with  a  limit,  which  safeguards  the  General  Confer- 
ence from  too  great  a  number  of  the  representatives  of  the  im- 


292    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

mature  race."  And  I  can  stand  for  that,  and  I  can  advocate 
that  action  on  the  missionary  basis  among  the  people  of  our 
Church.  But  as  to  the  other  plan,  I  say  very  frankly  that  I 
doubt,  I  greatly  doubt  whether  it  can  be  carried  through  the 
General  Conference  and  through  the  Annual  Conferences.  It 
might  be  adopted  by  a  majority  of  our  Commission.  It  might 
be  adopted  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  our  General  Conference. 
That  might  be  possible.  But  it  would  be  exceedingly  difficult, 
I  think,  for  it  to  be  adopted  by  three-fourths  of  the  members  of 
our  Annual  Conferences.  I  do  not  say  it  cannot  be  done.  I 
am  trying  to  be  just  as  frank  as  I  can  be.  It  might  be  done ; 
but  it  would  be  very  difficult  to  do.  Now  I  believe,  brethren, 
that  if  you  desire  the  unification  of  Methodism,  you  will  recog- 
nize that  the  proposition  we  present  to  you  does  not  really  cur- 
tail the  rights  of  the  negroes  who  are  at  present  in  your  Church. 
I  would  be  willing,  if  it  should  turn  out  that  to-day  in  your 
Church  the  representation  should  be  six  per  cent  instead  of  five 
per  cent,  simply  to  safeguard  the  point  of  the  rights  of  your 
present  membership,  I  would  be  willing  personally  to  vote  five 
and  a  half  or  six  per  cent  to  cover  that  point.  But  having  done 
that,  I  feel  that  your  own  attitude  toward  the  negro,  with  sep- 
arate congregations  and  separate  Annual  Conferences  and  the 
separate  Regional  Conference,  all  indicates  that  you  agree  with 
us,  in  practice  at  least  whether  you  can  agree  with  us  in  theory 
or  not,  that  the  negro  race  is  still  an  object  of  our  missionary 
endeavor,  of  our  deepest  solicitude,  of  our  helpful  service ;  and 
that  your  brethren  in  your  General  Conference  and  in  your 
Church  would  recognize  that  there  was  an  opportunity  given  by 
the  alternative  proposition  that  as  soon  as  the  negro  membership 
reached  four  hundred  thousand  they  could  go  to  the  General 
Conference  and  ask  for  an  Associate  General  Conference,  and 
the  General  Conference  would  be  obliged  to  give  them  that  if 
they  want  it.  Then  they  would  have  equal  rights  and  privileges 
in  every  way,  and  they  could  have  twenty  delegates  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  to  speak  and  vote  on  any  question  that  pertained 
to  their  own  interests  in  the  United  Church.  I  do  trust  that 
you  can  see  your  way  clear  to  adopt  the  paper,  not  necessarily 
in  every  item  of  it  (it  might  be  subject  to  some  little  adjustment 
as  to  the  powers  of  the  Central  Conferences  and  Associate  Gen- 
eral Conference),  but  the  principle  which  we  have  laid  down  in 
this  paper,  that  this  contains  your  realization  that  the  four  men 
who  have  signed  it  have  gone  as  far  as  they  think  it  is  safe  and 
right  to  go,  if  we  are  to  go  down  to  our  Church  with  much  hope 
of  securing  the  adoption  of  the  plan.  I  am  open  to  conviction. 
If  I  can  be  convinced  that  you  are  right  and  I  am  wrong,  I  will 
vote  for  your  plan ;  but  to-day  I  cannot  see  it  that  way. 


Cleveland  Meeting 


293 


A.  J.  Lamar:  Simply  to  clear  up  the  parliamentary  situation, 
for  as  I  understand  it  at  present  the  minority  report,  or  what- 
ever you  call  it,  has  no  standing,  I  move  the  adoption  of  the 
minority  report  as  a  substitute  for  the  majority  report,  just  to 
get  it  before  us  in  a  parliamentary  way. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  report  is  before  you  in 
that  shape  now. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  There  is  one  matter  with  which  Bishop 
McDowell  dealt,  which  he  left,  however,  in  an  uncertain  atti- 
tude, which,  in  my  judgment,  ought  to  be  made  very  clear,  so 
that  when  consultation  is  had,  especially  in  the  separate  Com- 
missions, each  of  us  may  be  enabled  to  obtain  the  legal  judgment 
of  the  judges  and  lawyers  in  the  separate  Commissions,  and  vote 
intelligently  from  the  standpoint  of  the  advice  they  have  given. 
In  my  opinion,  the  minority  report,  if  adopted  by  this  Commis- 
sion, adopted  by  both  General  Conferences,  adopted  by  the  An- 
nual Conferences,  and  proclaimed  to  be  in  force  in  the  Church, 
could  be  overthrown  in  equity  by  the  action  of  any  of  our  negro 
members.  Now  I  put  that  exceedingly  broadly,  as  you  observe, 
for  I  mean  to  have  it  understood  just  in  that  way.  I  say  it 
because  there  are  a  number  of  lawyers  here  who  can  correct  me 
if  they  disagree  with  me  and  advise  properly  in  regard  to  it. 
Bishop  Cannon  accurately  stated  the  situation  when  he  said,  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  those  colored  brethren  are  to-day  members 
of  our  Church  they  have  certain  rights  of  which  they  cannot  be 
deprived  without  their  consent.  But  the  whole  basis  of  his 
argument  failed  to  apply  that  proposition.  Their  rights  are  not 
found  in  mass.  It  is  not  that  those  rights  are  to  be  determined 
by  taking  in  bulk  the  total  colored  membership  and  determining 
what  are  the  rights  of  the  total  colored  membership  in  bulk. 
But  the  right  of  every  individual  member  of  the  Church  to-day, 
the  Church  being  a  voluntary  organization,  possessed  of  certain 
property — the  right  of  every  individual  member  in  the  Church 
as  an  individual  is  equal  to  the  right  of  every  other  individual 
member  of  it;  and  he  has  a  right  to  maintan  at  the  bar  of  any 
court  of  competent  jurisdiction  an  action  in  equity  to  prevent 
his  being  deprived  of  any  substantial  rights  which  any  other 
member  in  like  situation  has.  Now,  I  want  you  to  get  the  ex- 
pression I  make  there,  "Any  other  member  in  like  situation  has." 
If  in  point  of  fact  he  is  in  the  situation,  by  reason  of  his  personal 
immaturity,  that  the  law  could  put  Jts  finger  upon  him  and  say, 
"By  reason  of  your  personal  immaturity  the  general  Church  has 
a  right  to  say  to  you  that  you  cannot  act  fully  as  every  other 
fully  mature  person  may  act,"  that  is  within  the  power  of  the 
Church  to  regulate.  It  is  likewise  within  the  power  of  the 
Church  to  say  that  if  you  associate  yourself  in  your  Annual 
Conference  or  in  your  Church  with  a  body  of  men  who,  taking 


294    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

them  altogether,  are  not  of  the  same  maturity  as  another  Church 
or  another  Annual  Conference,  you  may,  as  a  member  of  that 
Church  or  of  that  Annual  Conference,  be  deprived  of  the  pos- 
session of  rights  which  the  other  Church  or  other  Annual  Con- 
ference has.    But  that  is  not  what  this  minority  report  proposes 
to  do.    We  might  as  well  face  it  squarely.    It  proposes  to 
say  to  every  colored  member  of   the   Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  as  it  is  at  present  constituted,  "No  matter  how  mature 
you  are,  no  matter  how  able  you  personally  are  to  deal  with 
every  question  which  comes  before  the  Church,  you  shall  not 
have  that  right,  simply  because  your  skin  is  black."    Now,  that 
is  the  situation  of  it,  and  you  have  got  to  face  it  so.   If  we  could 
go  before  some  court,  and  say  to  that  court,  "Here  is  a  sub- 
stantial recognition  by  the  law  of  the  land  of  a  substantial  dif- 
ference between  this  man  and  that  man,"  then  the  law  of  the 
land  would  say,  "You  may  give  to  this  man  more  or  less  than  to 
that  man,  because  there  is  a  substantial  difference  between  them." 
But  the  law  of  this  land  to-day  recognizes  that  the  black  man 
is  entitled  to  the  same  suffrage  rights,  civilly,  as  the  white  man 
is.   You  may  regulate  it,  as  I  have  said,  and  you  have  regulated 
it,  and  the  courts  have  sustained  the  regulation.    But  there  has 
been  no  regulation  made  by  a  State,  which  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  has  sustained,  which  did  not  in  some  way 
turn  to  the  individual  and  say,  "Because  of  your  lack  in  this  or 
that  regard  you  may  be  deprived."    There  is  not  a  provision 
in  any  regulation  of  a  Southern  State,  which  has  been  sustained 
by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  that  in  the  slightest 
degree  varies  from  the  principle  I  have  expressed.    What  is  the 
application  of  this?    Every  one  of  our  existing  members — I  am 
not  talking  about  those  who  are  not  members,  but  as  to  existing 
members — every  individual  existing  member  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  has  an  equal  right  with  any  other  individual 
existing  member  in  the  property  rights  of  the  Church  and  in 
lifting  his  voice  and  saying  as  to  what  shall  be  done  with  those 
property  rights.    That  is  putting  it  broadly.    But  is  there  a 
lawyer  here  that  doubts  it?    I  would  like  to  hear  one  here  if 
he  has  any  legal  doubt  of  that  proposition.    If  there  is  none,  you 
have  answered  the  whole  of  the  minority  report.    Unless  you 
can  get  the  consent  of  the  colored  membership  to  it,  the  minority 
report  is  not  worth  the  paper  it  is  written  on.    I  am  in  entire 
accord  with  much  that  Bishop  Cannon  says.    But  I  cannot  lay 
my  finger  on  Brother  Jones  and  say,  "You  have  certain  rights 
that  I  have.    I  am  going  to  take  them  away  from  you."    I  can- 
not do  that.    I  have  no  desire  to  do  it;  but  the  law  of  the  land 
does  not  permit  me  to  do  it.    When  you  come  to  deal  with  this 
matter  in  your  separate  Commissions  I  w?nt  you  to  take  that 
thought  into  mind.    If  we  cannot  devise  some  plan  to  accom- 


Cleveland  Meeting 


295 


plish  what  we  want  which  will  not  interfere  with  the  existing 
rights  of  our  colored  members,  there  is  no  use  in  undertaking 
to  devise  any  plan.  I  think  it  would  be  perfectly  proper  without 
condemning  the  colored  membership  en  bloc,  to  say  to  those  who 
are  in  Conferences  which  are  in  fact  missionary,  "You  shall  be 
treated  as  Missionary  Conferences."  That  is  perfectly  proper, 
for  it  is  depriving  no  man  of  any  rights.  It  is  giving  him  in 
that  relation  exactly  the  same-  rights  that  every  man  in  that  re- 
lation has ;  and  the  law  permits  it.  But  to  say  to  a  man,  "Though 
you  are  not  in  fact  in  that  relation,  you  shall  be  treated  as  if 
you  were,"  is  to  say  what  the  law  of  the  land  will  not  let  you 
say.  And  unless  you  want  some  one  of  our  colored  members 
(and  any  one  of  the  whole  multitude  can  do  it)  to  file  an  appeal 
in  equity  and  make  all  that  you  are  endeavoring  to  do  of  no 
effect,  you  will  hand  them  some  other  plan  to  accomplish  what 
you  wish  to  bring  to  pass  than  the  plan  that  appears  in  this 
minority  report.  I  am  willing,  if  some  plan  can  be  found  fairly 
and  equitably  and  justly,  to  modify  the  report  of  the  majority. 
I  am  not  enough  versed  in  the  figures  of  our  Church  to  know, 
and  it  is  not  necessary  that  I  should  know  now ;  but  if  you  have 
a  choice  between  these  two  plans,  you  have  a  choice  between 
one  that  is  legal  and  one  that  is  illegal ;  and  if  that  is  not  a  Hob- 
son's  choice,  I  don't  know  where  you  will  find  one. 

Bishop  Moore:  I  am  rather  hurt  to  confess  that  I  cannot 
understand  that  speech.  I  do  not  know  what  you  are  talking 
about.  That  is  not  in  my  line.  I  am  not  a  lawyer  and  do  not 
know  anything  about  law.  So  I  cannot  handle  that  part  of  it. 
I  am  trying  to  get  at  these  two  reports  to  find  out  the  difference 
between  them.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  majority  report  had  as 
its  real  core  this  one  statement,  that  there  shall  be  a  Conference, 
a  Regional  Conference,  for  the  colored  membership.  It  does  not 
make  any  difference  what  you  name  it.  You  can  call  it  mission- 
ary, associate,  administrative,  or  jurisdictional.  We  will  prob- 
ably change  all  these  names.  But  there  shall  be  a  Regional  Con- 
ference for  the  colored  membership,  which  shall  have  repre- 
sentation in  the  General  Conference,  in  proportion  to  its  mem- 
bership in  full  connection.  That  is  what  I  understand  the  ma- 
jority report  to  be.  Am  I  wrong?  I  understand  the  minority 
report  to  add  simply  this  other  clause,  "Provided  that  this  repre- 
sentation shall  not  exceed  five  per  cent  of  the  entire  membership 
of  the  General  Conference. "  That  is  all  the  distinction  I  see 
between  those  two  reports.  It  gives  the  negro  proportionate 
representation  in  the  General  Conference — not  a  particle  of  dif- 
ference there.  The  minority  report  provides  that  this  member- 
ship of  negroes  in  the  General  Conference  shall  not  be  beyond 
five  per  cent.  What  is  it  to-day?  Five  per  cent.  If  you  give 
him  any  proportionate  representation,  you  get  five  per  cent  of 


296    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

the  General  Conference.  We  will  have  in  the  neighborhood  of 
six  million  members.  There  are  about  three  hundred  thousand 
negroes  in  full  connection.  That  is  about  five  per  cent  of  the 
membership,  five  per  cent  of  the  General  Conference.  It  seems 
to  me  that  the  white  membership  will  grow  as  fast  as  the  colored 
membership.  There  will  be  no  perceptible  change  in  twenty-five 
years.  Why,  then,  put  in  this  "five  per  cent"?  That  protects 
us  against  the  coming  in  of  any  great  block  of  colored  Meth- 
odism. 

Bishop  Cranston:  In  expressing  the  judgment  that  there  is  no 
difference  between  the  two  reports,  does  not  one  report  use  the 
word  "missionary"  Regional  Conference? 

Bishop  Moore:  That  is  naming,  just  simply  naming  this  Con- 
ference. Then  that  works  itself  out.  We  submit  this  to  the 
Joint  Committee,  and  all  the  naming  will  take  care  of  itself.  In 
adopting  this  word  "missionary,"  it  simply  puts  it  in  the  list. 

Bishop  Cranston:  If  you  take  three  hundred  thousand  mem- 
bers out  of  one  of  these  Churches  and  class  them  with  the  Asi- 
atic and  African  membership,  they  being  Americans,  does  it  not 
make  a  difference? 

Bishop  Moore :  Not  as  I  see  it.  I  suppose  it  does  for  some 
people.  But  that  is  the  way  I  see  it  to-day.  I  think  we  are  about 
as  close  together  as  we  could  be  and  be  apart  at  all.  I  have 
never  known  this  Commission  to  be  as  close  together  as  now. 
We  have  made  immense  progress  since  yesterday  morning.  The 
fine  paper  brought  in  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  settled 
the  matter  of  the  Regional  Conference;  and  now,  so  far  as  I 
see,  the  only  thing  dividing  us  is  that  matter  of  the  five  per  cent. 
So  I  say  that  I  really  cannot  understand  the  force  of  Judge 
Simpson's  argument.    I  will  be  glad  to  have  that  cleared  up. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  I  would  answer  the  suggestion  of  Bishop 
Moore  in  this  way.  The  difference  is  just  exactly  this:  If  you 
and  I,  having  equal  rights  in  a  common  thing,  are  entitled  to 
protect  our  equal  rights  in  the  common  thing,  you  may  not  take 
from  me  that  equal  right,  nor  I  you;  nor  if  three  are  in  it  can 
two  take  my  rights  from  me.   That  is  the  difference  here. 

Bishop  Moore :  Do  you  think  something  is  taken  away  here  ? 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  That  is  exactly  what  this  proposes  to  do. 

Edgar  Blake:  Does  that  point  you  make  apply  to  our  colored 
membership  in  Africa  as  well  as  to  our  colored  membership  in 
America  ? 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  No,  because  they  have  never  been  in  the 
situation  that  our  colored  membership  here  is  in. 

H.  H.  White :  I  hesitate  very  much  to  cross  swords  with  the 
legal  argument  of  so  distinguished  a  lawyer  as  Judge  Simpson, 
of  Pennsylvania.  I  do  not,  however,  fully  appreciate  the  argu- 
ment of  Judge  Simpson.    For  one  lawyer,  I  do  not  agree  with 


Cleveland  Meeting  297 

him.  My  principal  training  in  law  has  been  in  Louisiana,  and 
under  the  civil  law,  and  perhaps  under  somewhat  different  canons 
of  law  from  those  prevailing  in  most  States.  However,  I  think, 
in  a  matter  1 1  this  sort,  the  general  equitable  principles  of  law 
prevailing  v  <jre  would  prevail  there,  and  vice  versa.  In  the  first 
place,  I  do  not  see  where  the  negro  is  deprived  of  any  rights. 
He  has  the  right  of  communion  in  his  Church,  to  sit  in  his  con- 
gregation, to  take  part  in  his  Conferences,  Church  Conference, 
Quarterly  Conference,  District  Conference,  Annual  Conference, 
and  Regional  Conference.  There  is  certainly  nothing  taken  from 
him  in  reference  to  this  supreme  General  Conference  which  is 
contemplated,  because  that  is  a  new  Conference,  created  by  the 
instrument  which  we  are  presumed  to  adopt,  and  thereby  addi- 
tional powers  and  rights  given  to  him  there  that  he  does  not  now 
possess.  He  is  not  deprived,  as  I  see  it,  of  any  physical  or  of  any 
property  rights  that  he  now  enjoys.  If  this  is  adopted,  he  will 
have  his  share  in  every  piece  of  property  owned  by  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South.  Therefore  I  do  not  believe — 
though  I  say  I  differ  from  so  distinguished  a  lawyer  as  Judge 
Simpson  with  great  hesitation,  and  have  made  no  special  study 
of  this  subject — but  I  do  not  believe  that  under  the  plans  con- 
templated by  the  report  which  Bishop  Cannon  has  read  there 
is  any  equitable  or  legal  right  of  which  the  negro  would  be  de- 
prived that  could  be  enforced  in  any  court  of  common  law  or  in 
any  court  of  equity.  While  I  do  not  entirely  agree  with  him, 
perhaps  (though  again  I  say  I  would  hesitate  to  differ  from 
Judge  Henry  Wade  Rogers  on  any  question  of  law,  for  he  oc- 
cupies, as  I  apprehend  it,  a  position  as  high  as  that  of  any  jus- 
tice in  the  United  States,  unless  it  be  one  of  the  Supreme  Court 
justices  of  the  United  States),  in  discussing  this  very  matter 
(unless  I  am  misinformed  the  very  report  referred  to  in  part 
in  this  report  read  by  Bishop  Cannon),  Judge  Rogers  said,  as 
reported,  on  pages  354,  355,  and  356  of  the  proceedings  at  Savan- 
nah*: 

The  reason  why  we  provide  "without  the  right  to  vote"  is  because  these 
members  will  have  the  right  to  vote  in  their  own  General  Conference;  and 
having  the  right  to  vote  there,  it  seemed  hardly  the  thing  to  provide  that 
they  should  have  the  right  to  vote  in  our  General  Conference.  Now,  if 
you  will  allow  me  a  few  words,  I  desire  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that 
the  proposition  now  submitted,  if  adopted,  will  not  deprive  a  single  col- 
ored member  of  his  membership  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  I 
also  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  by  express  provision  it  will  not  deprive 
him  of  any  right  of  property.  It  does,  however,  take  from  him  the 
right  to  sit  and  vote  in  the  General  Conference,  except  as  he  may  sit 
there  as  a  member  of  an  advisory  commission.  I  also  say  that  there  is 
nothing  in  the  law  of  the  land  or  in  ecclesiastical  law  which  makes  it 
illegal  for  us  to  adopt  the  proposition  as  proposed.    If  we  make  it  a  part 


*See  pages  339  and  340  of  Volume  II.  of  these  Proceedings. 


298    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

of  the  Constitution  of  our  united  Church,  no  rights  of  property  will  be 
illegally  divested.  The  State  of  New  York  adopted,  the  other  day,  an 
amendment  to  its  Constitution.  The  Constitution  of  that  State  gave  the 
right  to  vote  to  white  male  citizens.  The  amendment  dropped  the  word 
"male."  What  followed?  That  a  woman  in  New  York  may  now  vote 
not  only  for  presidential  electors,  but  for  a  Senator  of  the  United  States 
and  for  a  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives ;  that  she  may  vote 
for  a  Governor  of  the  State,  for  members  of  the  Legislature,  and  for 
all  State  officers.  What  else?  That  she  may  herself  be  elected  a  presi- 
dential elector ;  that  she  may  herself  be  elected  to  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  or  to  the  House  of  Representatives ;  that  she  may  herself  be  elected 
Governor  of  the  State  or  to  the  State  Legislature,  and  even  elected  a 
Judge  of  the  New  York  Court  of  Appeals.  No  one  supposes  that  the  fact 
that  these  rights  have  been  conferred  upon  the  women  of  New  York  by 
that  amendment  would  prevent  the  State  from  repealing  that  amendment, 
thus  withdrawing  the  rights  granted.  It  could  do  it.  When  it  adopted 
that  amendment  it  did  not  affect  any  property  rights.  No  woman  in  the 
State  was  worth  a  penny  more  or  a  penny  less.  Her  property  was  just 
exactly  what  it  was  before,  and  if  the  State  should  now  withdraw  from 
her  the  right  to  sit  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  and  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  or  in  the  Legislature  of  the  State,  it  will  not  affect  her 
property  rights  in  the  least.  Her  rights  of  property  would  be  just  ex- 
actly what  they  were  before  the  change  took  place.  So  here,  so  long  as 
we  do  not  deprive  these  brethren  of  their  membership  in  our  Church,  or 
take  from  them  their  property  rights,  the  Church  can  by  a  constitutional 
amendment  withdraw  from  them  their  right  to  sit  and  vote  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference. 

And  Judge  Rogers  goes  on  at  further  length  and  fortifies  and 
elaborates  that  opinion.  Now  the  position  I  am  taking  here — 
and  I  am  rather  defending  an  instrument  that  I  am  not  par- 
ticularly heartily  in  favor  of — but  I  do  not  think  it  can  be  at- 
tacked on  the  ground  of  legality,  and  I  am  defending  it  from 
that  standpoint.  The  instrument  which  we  proposed  does  not 
by  any  matter  of  means  deprive  the  negro  of  rights  or  privileges, 
ecclesiastical,  personal,  property,  or  otherwise,  to  anything  like 
the  degree  that  Judge  Henry  Wade  Rogers's  plan  did.  I  sup- 
pose I  can  say,  while  I  would  not  put  my  opinion  against  that  of 
Judge  Simpson,  I  will  balance  Judge  Rogers  and  Judge  Simpson 
and  let  you  gentlemen  judge  which  is  the  heavier  of  the  two. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  I  want  to  know  if  Judge  White  does  not 
see  a  difference  between  a  voluntary  organization  in  which  every 
one  has  exactly  the  same  interests  in  the  property  of  the  organi- 
zation as  very  other,  and  a  civil  organization  in  which  no  one 
has  any  interest  in  the  property  of  the  organization. 

H.  H.  White:  I  do  not  see  just  where  that  applies;  and  I  can- 
not answer  it,  except  this,  that  I  believe  that  the  rights  of  which 
Judge  Rogers  speaks  are  in  the  same  category  as  here,  only  that 
Judge  Rogers's  plan  takes  away  more  rights. 

Bishop  Cranston :  I  do  not  know  whether  this  question  is 
pertinent  or  not,  but  it  is  historical.  Dr.  Lamar,  do  you  remem- 
ber on  what  basis  the  Supreme  Court  made  its  decision  in  ren- 


Cleveland  Meeting 


299 


dering  its  verdict  after  the  separation  of  1844?  Was  that  the 
basis  of  individual  membership  in  the  South  as  compared  with 
the  North? 

A.  J.  Lamar :  I  think  so. 

Bishop  Cranston :  Brother  Simpson,  I  ask  whether  the  Su- 
preme Court  which  gave  to  the  Church,  South,  a  proportion  of 
the  Book  Concern  property  acted  upon  the  basis  of  individual 
membership  or  upon  some  other  membership?  My  recollection 
is  that  it  was  individual  membership. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  That  was  the  case  of  Smith  vs.  Sworm- 
stedt.  The  Supreme  Court  divided  all  funds  between  the  two 
Churches  proportionately  on  the  ground  of  membership,  on  the 
ground  that  the  preachers  and  their  widows  in  the  Church, 
South,  had  a  property  right  of  which  they  could  not  be  deprived. 
It  was  decided  on  that  basis,  and  covers  the  matter  now  under 
consideration. 

J.  H.  Reynolds :  I  raise  a  question.  I  presume  it  is  due  to  my 
lack  of  legal  acumen.  But  I  have  so  far  failed  to  have  stated 
the  points  in  which  legal  rights  are  destroyed.  Is  it  property 
right,  right  to  vote,  or  to  hold  office  in  the  General  Conference? 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  Nothing  to  do  with  the  General  Confer- 
ence. Suppose  that  you  and  Judge  Walton  and  I  had  a  property 
right  in  this  table,  the  property  right  in  the  table  could  not  be 
taken  away  from  me  by  the  action  of  you  and  Judge  Walton. 
Neither  can  you  take  the  usufruct  of  this  table  away  from  me. 
So  you  cannot  take  away  my  right  to  protect  my  right  in  the 
table.  But  this  action  of  the  minority  report  is  pro  tanto  a  tak- 
ing away  the  right  of  the  colored  man  to  protect  his  right  in  the 
property,  and  so  forth,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

J.  H.  Reynolds :  Presuming  that  the  colored  membership  is 
five  and  a  half  per  cent  of  the  total  membership,  and  we  give 
him  six  per  cent  of  the  total  membership  and  limit  it  to  that, 
would  his  power  to  protect  his  rights  be  destroyed? 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  If  ever  it  became  equivalent  to  seven  per 
cent,  then  every  one  now  in  the  Church  will  say  you  are  de- 
priving him  of  his  rights. 

J.  H.  Reynolds:  Of  a  potential  right. 

Bishop  Ainsworth :  I,  too,  want  to  ask  Judge  Simpson  a  ques- 
tion for  my  own  enlightenment.  I  do  not  wish  to  enter  into  the 
debate  concerning  the  legal  proposition  involved.  Would  not 
the  assignment  of  your  present  negro  membership  to  the  Regional 
Conference  be  a  deprivation  to  them  of  some  rights  that  they 
now  have  ?   Might  we  not  be  estopped  by  legal  action  ? 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  Not  at  all.  They  would  have  proportion- 
ate representation  in  the  General  Conference  and  therefore  all 
proportionate  right,  then  as  now,  as  other  members. 


300    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

Ira  E.  Robinson :  I  want  to  say  that,  while  I  think  this  matter 
of  legality  is  not  in  place  just  now,  it  may  do  good.  Judge  White 
has  taken  up  the  advocacy  of  a  thing  he  does  not  believe  in.  I 
have  gone  into  cases  before  now  for  clients,  not  believing  even 
in  their  reputations,  and  yet,  being  in  the  scramble  for  them  and 
being  paid  by  them,  I  came  to  believe  that  they  were  the  best  fel- 
lows in  the  world.  I  think  Judge  White  is  getting  into  the  posi- 
tion of  supporting  this  Conference  Committee.  I  do  not  want 
to  discuss  the  legal  proposition.  I  have  some  views  about  it. 
The  question  is  how  far  the  civil  courts  will  entertain  this  mat- 
ter. Time  and  again  they  have  refused  to  go  into  ecclesiastical 
matters.  I  think  this  question  ought  to  remain  in  abeyance,  and 
we  should  assume  that  the  reunion  of  the  two  branches  of  the 
Methodist  Church  will  be  not  out  of  legal  questions,  but  out  of 
the  questions  of  love  that  have  come  in  this  day.  So  I  hope  we 
will  proceed  with  the  spiritual  phases  of  the  matter  rather  than 
the  legal  phases  of  it.  I  am  very  much  pleased  to  see  the  senti- 
ment that  exists  in  this  Commission.  I  confess  that,  attending 
the  first  meeting  of  the  Joint  Commission,  I  felt  maybe  we  would 
never  make  any  progress  in  unification.  That  had  nothing  to 
do  with  my  refraining  from  going  to  Savannah.  But  at  St.  Louis 
I  saw  there  was  some  forwardness.  Here  we  are  nearer  to- 
gether than  ever.  And  we  are  going  to  get  together,  not  by  the 
discussion  of  legal  propositions,  but  that  we  may  make  a  great 
force  for  carrying  on  the  spiritual  life.  My  friends  in  West 
Virginia  say  that  in  talking  on  these  matters  I  always  want  an 
old-fashioned  Church.  So  I  do,  and  I  believe  we  are  going  to 
get  back  to  that  old  farth  that  has  been  my  anchorage  from  my 
boyhood  days.  Let  us  not  get  away  from  the  very  crux  of  it  all, 
the  faith  our  mothers  taught  us.  I  am  willing  to  concede  many 
things  that  I  do  not  want  to  concede,  for  the  sake  of  unification, 
providing  you  do  not  get  away  from  that  verse  my  mother  taught 
me,  "For  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only-begotten 
Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  on  hirn  should  not  perish,  but 
have  eternal  life."  I  am  talking  off  the  subject,  getting  away 
from  that  which  is  before  the  Commission,  practically;  but, 
brethren,  whatever  we  do,  let  us  not  forget,  in  the  reunified 
Church,  to  keep  to  the  traditions  as  closely  as  we  may,  let  us 
keep  to  the  life  of  Methodism.  I  think  sometimes  and  feel  that 
perhaps  we  are  getting  too  much  into  a  business  fashion  and 
away  from  the  personal  spiritual  fashion.  I  am  glad  that  Meth- 
odists, North  and  South,  are  getting  together  more  than  ever. 
But  I  am  not  much  for  a  sort  of  wholesale  religion.  Again,  I 
may  say  that  the  legal  proposition  is  always  one  difficult  to  deal 
with  and  one  that  in  the  negotiation  ought  to  be  avoided.  In  fact, 
it  is  the  province  of  the  modern  lawyer  to  keep  one  away  from 
legal  propositions.    Here  we  are,  we  men  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 


Cleveland  Meeting 


301 


copal  Church,  saying  that  the  question  is  never  going  to  arise 
anyway,  because  we  cannot  think  of  putting  the  colored  brother 
out.  We  want  to  keep  him,  because  we  want  to  continue  our 
great  work  of  caring  spiritually  for  all  the  races,  black,  white, 
red,  or  any  other  color. 

R.  E.  Blackwell :  What  is  the  real  difference  between  the  two 
propositions  as  to  the  number  of  representatives  in  the  Central 
Conference  ? 

Bishop  Moore :  None ;  no  difference  whatever. 

R.  E.  Blackwell :  I  want  to  know  what  is  the  difference  be- 
tween the  majority  and  the  minority  proposition  as  to  the  num- 
ber of  colored  representatives  in  the  General  Conference.  That 
is,  immediately.  You  say  none.  So,  then,  the  only  question  is 
as  to  preventing  all  the  other  Negro  Methodist  Churches  rush- 
ing into  this  combination.   Is  that  the  only  difference? 

J.  H.  Reynolds :  I  want  to  ask  another  question.  I  understood 
you  to  say  that  if  we  fix  six  per  cent  as  the  limit  of  representa- 
tion in  the  General  Conference,  when  the  colored  membership 
exceeded  that  per  cent  in  numbers  they  would  have  the  right  to 
go  into  court  and  have  declared  null  and  void  the  operation  of 
that  six  per  cent.  That  being  the  case,  I  want  to  ask  you  this 
question :  Is  not  the  colored  man,  and  are  not  his  rights,  as  well 
protected  under  that  document  as  under  the  one  you  prepared? 
Because  it  would  at  once  be  set  aside  as  null  and  void,  and  he 
would  have  the  rights  of  representation  in  the  General  Confer- 
ence even  as  now.  In  other  words,  that  would  be  the  only  fea- 
ture of  that  document  that  would  be  set  aside  by  the  courts,  and 
the  rest  would  stand  intact  and  his  rights  and  privileges  would 
be  as  much  protected  under  that  instrument  as  under  the  other. 

D.  G.  Downey :  There  seems  to  be  an  effort  here  on  the  part 
of  the  friends  of  both  these  reports  to  make  it  plain  to  us  that 
there  is  no  real  difference  between  them.  Bishop  Moore  argued 
that  it  simply  meant  proportionate  representation,  and  that  that 
was  all.  If  that  is  all  that  it  means,  why  not  take  the  simple 
and  plain  report,  without  a  lot  of  additional  and  extraneous  mat- 
ter, if  that  additional  and  extraneous  matter  is  of  no  moment? 
He  further  argued  that  the  growth  between  the  negro  member- 
ship and  the  white  membership  would  probably  always  keep 
them  on  a  parity.  If  that  is  so,  if  we  really  believe  that,  why 
cumber  the  thing  up  ?   Now,  brethren,  the  simple  fact  is  this — 

Bishop  Moore:  A  question  of  personal  privilege.  I  think  Dr. 
Downey  did  not  hear  something  I  said.  Didn't  you  hear  me  say 
anything  about  why  we  put  that  five  per  cent  in? 

D.  G.  Downey :  Yes.   You  said  it  made  no  matter. 

Bishop  Moore :  I  said  it  did  matter ;  that  it  protected  against 
any  large  number  of  people  coming  in  in  the  future. 

D.  G.  Downey:  Then  that  part  of  your  speech  negatives  the 


302    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

other  part.  With  me  and  others  of  us  it  is  not  a  matter  of  num- 
bers; it  is  a  matter  of  discrimination.  And  the  point  is  that  we 
do  not  feel  that  there  ought  to  be  any  discrimination.  And  there 
is  a  further  point,  that  we  do  not  believe  that  it  is  wise  for  the 
future  of  Methodism  to  cumber  it  up  with  a  lot  of  Conferences 
and  a  lot  of  machinery  like  Regional  Conferences  and  Central 
Conferences  and  Associate  General  Conferences  and  General 
Conferences.  All  this,  Mr.  Chairman  and  brothers,  is  devised 
as  machinery  to  accomplish  a  certain  purpose.  Now,  if  we  have 
just  one  simple  purpose — to  wit,  that  we  may  get  together,  with 
the  colored  membership  of  our  Church  having  its  proper  place 
as  a  Regional  Conference  with  other  Regional  Conferences  and 
proportional  representation  without  any  strings  to  it,  plain,  sim- 
ple, and  clear — that  is  one  thing  and  everybody  will  understand 
it.  If  we  attempt  anything  else,  no  matter  how  we  may  strive 
to  cover  it  up,  in  a  proper  way,  everybody  will  also  know  what 
we  mean.  Now  when  the  Church  is  united  and  we  have  a  Gen- 
eral Conference,  it  is  perfectly  easy  for  us  then  to  do  the  things 
that  the  Spirit  of  God  will  indicate  to  us  as  the  right  things  to 
do.  The  thing  for  us  to  do  to-day  is  to  do  the  thing  that  seems 
to  us  to  be  right  in  the  sight  of  God.  We  can  trust  some  things 
to  the  future.  I  think  it  was  Bishop  McDowell  who  said,  "If 
the  brethren  of  the  Southern  Church  feel  that  they  must  vote 
for  the  Southern  plan  or  some  other  like  it,  I  would  have  as 
much  confidence  that  they  are  voting  for  what  they  think  right 
as  that  I  am  doing  so."  We  are  all  striving  to  do  that.  Let  us 
vote  according  to  the  way  which  seems  best  to  us  at  the  present 
time,  for  the  present  emergency ;  and  let  us  have  a  certain  faith 
in  the  future.  I  think  that  we  ought  to  understand  that  there 
is  a  difference  between  these  reports.  If  there  is  not  a  differ- 
ence, let  us  take  the  simpler  plan.  If  there  is  a  difference, 
brothers,  let  us  not  strive  at  this  stage  of  our  proceedings  in 
any  sense  to  cover  it  over.  In  heaven's  name,  let  us  bring  it 
out  plain  and  fair  and  simple,  so  that  we  may  know  just  what 
we  are  doing. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  have  a  question  of  personal  privilege.  When 
Dr.  Blackwell  asked  whether  there  was  any  difference  and  Bishop 
Moore  replied  to  the  question,  it  might  have  been  felt  that  I 
acquiesced  in  that  answer.  But  I  did  not.  I  thought  that  the 
speech  I  had  made  indicated  that  I  did  think  there  is  a  discrimi- 
nation made  as  to  the  negro,  because  they  are  a  missionary,  im- 
mature people.  That  is  my  answer  to  Dr.  Downey.  There  is 
no  question  at  all  that  there  is  a  difference  in  the  reports,  and 
it  is  made  on  the  basis  that  the  negro  people  are  a  field  for  mis- 
sionary operation.   That  is  why  we  make  the  difference. 

D.  G.  Downey:  I  understood  Bishop  Cannon  so  to  say.  And 
I  did  not  at  all  indicate  that  I  did  not  understand  what  he  said. 


Cleveland  Meeting 


303 


Bishop  McDowell :  A  question  of  personal  privilege.  I  feel 
that  it  ought  to  be  said  in  all  fairness  that  the  two  reports  are 
presented  because  in  the  judgment  of  those  presenting  them  they 
are  different. 

F.  M.  Thomas :  The  members  of  the  committee  from  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  have  had  no  opportunity 
to  confer  with  their  Commission  on  the  problems  before  this 
Joint  Committee.  We  have  not  had  a  meeting  since  our  last 
General  Conference  until  this  session.  At  the  meeting  of  the 
Committee  of  Conference  it  was  inadvertently  suggested  that 
such  a  meeting  could  be  held.  Then  some  one  called  attention 
to  the  fact  that  some  might  consider  that  a  breach  of  courtesy, 
if  a  part  of  the  Joint  Committee  talked  with  our  Commission,  and 
so  we  decided  not  to  talk.  But  we  resolved,  after  the  matter 
had  been  presented  here,  to  ask  the  Joint  Commission  the  privi- 
lege of  withdrawing,  so  that  our  Commission  might  discuss  the 
matter  somewhat.  This  is  done  because  we  were  assured  by  the 
members  of  the  committee  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
that  they  had  had  a  rather  full  conference  concerning  this  matter, 
and  we  felt  we  ought  to  have  the  same  privilege ;  and  I  so  move. 

Bishop  Hamilton :  We  did  not  hear  that  motion. 

F.  M.  Thomas :  The  Commission  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  decided  to  have  a  meeting  after  this  matter  was 
presented  here,  so  that  the  members  of  the  committee  might  con- 
fer with  their  Commission.   They  had  not  discussed  the  matter. 

Bishop  McDowell:  Of  course,  there  is  only  one  motion  to 
make,  which  I  have  pleasure  in  making — 

Bishop  Cranston :  Before  any  motion  is  made,  I  would  like  to 
have  a  clear  understanding  of  the  facts.  There  has  been  no 
meeting  with  reference  to  the  report  of  this  Committee  of  Con- 
ference.  We  are  all  on  a  level  here  with  regard  to  this  report. 

Bishop  McDowell :  Do  I  understand,  Dr.  Thomas,  that  the 
Commission  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  had  this 
report  before  it? 

F.  M.  Thomas :  No.  We  understood  from  the  statement  made 
in  the  Committee  of  Conference  that  you  had  discussed  some 
phases  of  this  matter  rather  fully,  and  so  we  ask  this  privilege. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  make  the  motion  that  after  necessary 
announcements  the  Joint  Commission  adjourn  for  the  purpose 
of  enabling  the  separate  Commissions  to  meet  if  they  wish. 

J.  F.  Goucher :  I  rise  to  second  the  motion,  and  to  say  that  I 
wish  there  were  some  way  whereby  we  could  hear  the  argu- 
ments and  discussions  of  the  Commissions. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  was  going  to  move  that  we  would  ac- 
cept the  invitation  of  the  Southern  Commission  to  be  their  guests ! 

Edgar  Blake:  Much  has  been  said  this  afternoon  concerning 
this  matter.    I  do  not  care  to  debate  the  merits  of  either  one  of 


304   Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

these  reports.  I  rise  merely  to  point  out  what  appears  to  me  to 
be  the  only  real  difference  between  the  two  reports — and  for 
that  matter  the  only  real  difference  that  there  appears  to  be  be- 
tween these  two  Commissions,  on  the  negro  question.  I  quite 
agree  with  what  Bishop  Moore  has  said,  that  we  have  gone  a 
long  way  in  our  discussions  and  agreements  on  this  matter.  In- 
deed, I  think  we  have  traveled  a  far  greater  distance  than  any 
of  us  ever  hoped  we  might  do  when  we  met  in  our  earlier  meet- 
ings. We  have  traveled  a  long  distance  since  that  first  meeting 
at  Baltimore.  As  I  understand  it,  we  have  agreed  that  our  col- 
ored membership  shall  remain  in  the  Church  as  an  integral  part 
of  the  Church.  We  have  agreed  that  our  colored  membership 
shall  have  their  separate  congregations,  separate  Annual  Con- 
ferences— 

Bishop  McDowell :  Mr.  Chairman,  I  made  the  motion,  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  Dr.  Thomas  had  presented  what  I  understood 
to  be  a  formal  request  from  the  Church,  South,  for  the  privilege 
of  going  into  separate  sessions. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  did  not  understand  that  that  was  a  formal  re- 
quest from  the  Commission  of  the  Church,  South. 

F.  M.  Thomas :  That  was  the  fact.  We  do  desire  to  make  the 
request  formally,  but  had  allowed  the  discussion  to  go  on. 

J.  R.  Pepper :  We  would  be  glad  to  have  Dr.  Blake  go  on, 
analyzing  the  situation. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  did  not  understand  that  I  was  trespassing 
against  a  request  made  by  the  Commission  of  the  Church,  South. 
I  must  apologize  for  having  done  so.  But  I  greatly  appreciate 
your  courtesy  in  allowing  me  to  continue.  I  was  saying  we  have 
gone  a  long  distance,  and  have  reached  an  agreement  that  our 
colored  membership  shall  remain  in  the  Church  as  an  integral 
part  of  the  Church  and  shall  have  their  separate  congregations. 
Annual  Conferences,  and  Regional  Conference.  Thus  far,  it 
appears  to  me,  we  are  agreed.  We  are  also  agreed  that  our 
colored  membership  shall  have  representation  in  the  General  Con- 
ference, the  supreme  lawmaking  body  of  the  Church.  We  are 
agreed,  as  I  understand  it,  in  these  two  reports  now  before  us, 
that  our  colored  membership  shall  have  a  representation  in  the 
General  Conference  proportionate  to  their  membership  in  full 
connection  in  the  Church.  On  that  matter  there  appears  to  be 
no  difference  between  these  two  reports.  They  are  as  one.  The 
only  difference  between  the  reports,  as  I  see  it,  as  it  affects  this 
particular  matter,  is  that  the  minority  report  proposes  that  that 
representation  shall  never  be  in  excess  of  five  per  cent  of  the 
entire  membership  of  the  General  Conference.  The  majority  re- 
port has  no  expressed  limitation  of  any  kind.  As  I  understand 
it,  that  is  the  sole  difference  on  this  particular  matter  between 
these  two  reports. 


Cleveland  Meeting 


305 


Bishop  Cooke:  May  I  ask  Dr.  Blake  a  question  there?  Is  not 
the  real  core  of  that  question  not  the  amount  of  representation 
but  the  status  of  the  negroes?  The  reducing  the  status  of  the 
colored  membership  from  full  membership  in  the  Church  to  a 
missionary  status? 

Edgar  Blake:  Not  as  I  understand  it.  Let  me  call  Bishop 
Cooke's  attention  to  this  fact :  The  minority  report  did  introduce 
the  term  "missionary"  after  the  report  was  presented  here.  But 
the  introduction  of  the  term  "missionary"  in  no  wise  changed 
the  privileges  and  the  powers  of  the  jurisdiction.  Am  I  correct 
in  that  matter?   I  think  I  am. 

Bishop  Cooke:  Did  it  change  the  status? 

Edgar  Blake :  It  did  not  change  the  status,  in  so  far  as  the 
status  had  been  denned  in  terms  of  privilege  and  power.  That 
word  "missionary" — let  me  say  a  word  on  that  in  passing.  Per- 
sonally I  hope  the  word  "missionary"  will  be  dropped,  if  the 
Chairman  of  the  Minority  Committee  will  pardon  the  sugges- 
tion. And  for  this  reason :  We  started  out  using  that  word 
"missionary"  for  the  discussion  of  our  foreign  groups,  but  soon 
found  that  we  were  in  difficulty.  Our  European  brethren  seri- 
ously objected  to  being  designated  as  a  missionary  jurisdiction. 
Then  we  dropped  it  and  took  "Subregional,"  and  dropped  that, 
and  took  "Central,"  and  dropped  that,  and  at  St.  Louis  we 
agreed  that  we  would  call  all  of  these  Conferences  "Regional." 
But  what  I  want  to  come  back  to,  is  this  matter  as  to  whether, 
granting  the  right  to  our  negro  membership  to  proportionate 
membership  in  the  General  Conference,  there  is  any  necessity 
for  putting  a  limitation  of  five  per  cent  on  the  representation? 
Now,  there  are  those  who  feel  that  putting  that  limitation  of 
five  per  cent  upon  the  representation  of  the  negro  membership 
in  the  General  Conference  is  a  discrimination  against  the  negro 
on  account  of  his  color.  There  are  many  who  feel  that  way.  In- 
deed, I  think  that  is  the  principal  objecton  that  lies  in  the  minds 
of  many.  That  is  to  say,  we  do  not  want  to  appear  to  discrimi- 
nate against  a  man  in  this  particular  on  account  of  the  color  of 
his  skin.  I  think  in  a  matter  of  this  kind  every  one  of  us  can 
afford  to  be  generous,  as  I  am  sure  every  one  of  us  desires  to 
be  generous.  Surely  this  is  a  time,  above  all  times,  in  this  day 
and  in  this  state  and  stage  of  the  world,  when  the  strong  ought  to 
bear  the  infirmities  of  the  weak.  And  unless  there  is  some  ade- 
quate reason  for  putting  such  limitation  into  our  Constitution, 
it  would  seem  to  me  it  were  better  to  leave  out  the  discrimination, 
or  the  apparent  discrimination.  It  has  been  stated  here  that 
there  is  some  delicacy  and  some  difficulty  in  the  relation  of  the 
races.  I  am  quite  sure  that  we  are  facing  a  very  serious  relation 
between  the  races  at  this  time,  in  the  North.  It  was  only  last 
20 


306    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

week,  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  that  a  race  riot  occurred  in  which 
a  negro  lost  his  life.  The  next  day  a  negro  was  taken  from  a 
street  car  in  the  South  End  and  beaten  almost  to  the  point  of 
death.  We  are  facing  a  very  serious  situation  in  Chicago  at  the 
present  time.  And  I  do  not  believe  that  we,  as  representatives 
of  the  Church  of  Christ,  can  afford  to  do  a  single  thing  that  will 
add  so  much  as  a  feather's  weight  to  the  delicacy  and  difficulty 
of  the  situation  that  all  of  us  want  to  alleviate  so  far  as  possible. 
Now,  if  it  were  necessary  that  such  a  limitation  should  be  placed 
in  order  to  save  the  kingdom  of  Christ  or  any  part  of  our  nation 
from  real  embarrassment  of  a  serious  kind,  I  confess  to  you  I 
would  favor  such  a  limitation.  All  of  you  know  what  my  posi- 
tion  has  been  in  the  past.  I  have  spoken  my  position  from  the 
housetops  (sometimes  I  think  rather  too  often).  If  I  thought 
a  limitation  of  this  kind  were  necessary  to  safeguard  the  General 
Conference,  the  Church,  or  any  section  of  the  Church  from  a 
really  serious  or  grievous  embarrassment,  I  would  not  hesitate 
for  a  moment  to  advocate  it.  It  has  been  said  by  my  good  friend 
Bishop  Moore  that  this  limitation  of  five  per  cent  is  necessary 
to  prevent  the  colored  people  from  coming  en  bloc  into  the 
Church.  I  presume  that  what  he  refers  to  is  the  possibility  of 
the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  or  the  African  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  or  the  African  Methodist  Episcopal 
Zion  Church,  coming  into  the  Church  and  uniting  with  us.  What 
I  want  to  point  out  is  this,  that  those  Churches  are  not  coming 
in  with  us  in  this  original  union.  If  they  come  in  at  all,  it  will 
be  after  this  union  is  consummated.  After  this  union  is  con- 
summated on  any  action  looking  toward  the  receiving  of  any 
other  communion  en  bloc  into  the  Church,  or  any  other  item  be- 
fore the  General  Conference,  any  two  of  the  Regional  delega- 
tions can  ask  for  a  vote  by  Regional  delegations.  And  the  vote 
shall  be  taken  by  delegations,  and  it  shall  require  a  majority  of 
the  Regional  delegations  to  consummate  the  action.  In  other 
words,  we  hold  it  entirely  and  absolutely  in  our  hands  to  state 
the  terms  under  which  any  communion  of  any  kind  or  character 
shall  unite  with  ourselves.  And  therefore  I  do  not  think  we  need 
this  five  per  cent  limitation  to  save  us  from  embarrassment  in 
that  particular.  We  may  face,  as  some  of  you  might  think,  the 
embarrassment  that  our  negro  membership  as  the  years  pass  may 
increase  in  numbers  to  such  an  extent  that  they  would  have 
more  than  five  per  cent  of  the  membership,  ten  or  twenty  per 
cent  even,  until  they  have  enough  members  in  America  to  entitle 
them  to  a  representation  in  the  General  Conference  that  would 
be  an  embarrassment  and  menace  to  us.  If  I  thought,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, that  the  time  would  come  when  the  negro  membership 
would  dominate  the  General  Conference,  or  seriously  menace  its 
working  efficiency,  I  would  not  hesitate  for  a  moment  to  advo- 


Cleveland  Meeting 


307 


cate  a  limitation  of  five  per  cent  upon  its  representation.  But 
here  are  the  facts,  and  I  will  use  the  statistics  for  1916,  the 
latest  available  that  have  been  analyzed.  According  to  those 
statistics,  we  will  have  a  little  more  than  six  million  members 
and  probationers  in  the  reorganized  Church.  Of  that  number, 
about  three  hundred  and  fifteen  thousand  people  constitute  our 
colored  membership  in  full  connection — that  is,  about  five  per 
cent.  I  think  we  all  agree  that  three  hundred  thousand  of  our 
colored  membership  in  a  body  of  six  millions  cannot  be  any 
serious  embarrassment  to  us,  certainly  not  sufficiently  so  to  re- 
quire a  limitation  of  the  kind  proposed.  Then  this  other  thing 
we  have  agreed  to  tentatively,  that  the  General  Conference  shall 
consist  of  not  less  than  six  hundred  and  fifty  nor  more  than 
eight  hundred  and  fifty  members.  That  is,  we  are  to  have  a 
Conference  in  which  a  minimum  and  maximum  membership  are 
fixed.  Proportional  representation  means  that  our  colored  mem- 
bership in  a  General  Conference  of  six  hundred  and  fifty  would 
have  about  thirty-two  members;  in  a  General  Conference  of 
eight  hundred  and  fifty,  a  representation  of  about  forty-two. 
I  submit  that  that  does  not  look  like  a  very  serious  embarrass- 
ment. If  the  negro  is  to  be  in  the  General  Conference  at  all, 
I  do  not  believe  that  either  thirty-two  or  forty-two  will  be  a 
menace  or  embarrassment  to  us  in  any  particular.  "But,"  some 
one  says,  "our  negro  membership  may  increase,  and  their  num- 
bers in  the  General  Conference  may  increase."  What  are  the 
facts  in  the  case?  And  I  would  like  to  get  this  into  the  thinking 
of  our  Southern  and  of  our  Northern  brethren  alike.  A  study 
of  the  growth  of  our  Church  for  the  last  quarter  of  a  century 
shows  that  our  negro  membership  has  been  the  slowest  growing 
element  in  our  Church.  I  regret  that  I  have  not  all  the  data 
here  this  afternoon.  The  facts  are  in  my  office  in  Chicago. 
But  I  think  I  am  stating  the  situation  conservatively  when  I  say 
that  for  the  last  five  years  the  growth  of  our  negro  membership 
has  hardly  been  more,  proportionately,  than  one-half  or  one-third 
the  growth  of  our  white  membership,  and  not  more  than  one- 
fourth  or  one-fifth  of  the  growth  of  our  foreign  membership. 
So  you  can  see  that,  as  we  go  on,  the  ratio  of  our  colored  mem- 
bership to  our  white  membership  in  this  country  and  to  our  for- 
eign membership  abroad  is  going  to  be  a  decreasing  ratio.  If 
the  increase  in  our  white  and  foreign  membership  shall  continue 
at  the  same  ratio  for  the  next  ten  years  as  for  the  last  three  or 
four  years,  we  shall  find  that  at  the  end  of  a  decade  our  colored 
membership,  instead  of  having  five  per  cent  of  our  membership, 
will  have  only  about  four  per  cent  of  our  membership.  If  I 
were  a  representative  of  our  colored  membership,  I  would  rather 
have  a  fixed  ratio  of  representation  than  the  proposed  propor- 
tional representation.    As  it  goes  on,  the  rate  of  increase  being 


3o8    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

what  it  is,  there  will  be  a  steadily  decreasing  representation  of 
our  colored  membership  in  the  General  Conference.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  five  per  cent  limitation  is  not  necessary  to  protect 
the  Church  from  any  embarrassment  that  some  of  you  brethren 
feel.  Of  course  I  know  that  it  would  be  an  easier  matter  for 
some  of  our  Southern  brethren  to  explain  to  their  people  that 
an  agreement  has  been  entered  into  that  the  representation  shall 
never  exceed  five  per  cent  than  to  make  this  somewhat  difficult 
statement  that  I  have  made.  But  the  facts  in  the  case  are  that, 
so  far  as  our  ratio  of  growth  is  concerned,  the  five  per  cent  limi- 
tation is  not  necessary  to  protect  the  Church.  Just  this  further 
word :  I  sincerely  hope  and  earnestly  pray  that  when  these  two 
Commissions  have  traveled  the  great  distance  we  have  traveled 
since  Baltimore — and,  thank  God,  we  have  traveled  it  together — 
somehow  this  Commission  will  stay  on  this  thing  until  we  see 
eye  to  eye  and  reach  a  conclusion  that  we  can  accept  together 
in  this  matter. 

Brethren,  any  plan  of  union  which  we  devise  is  bound  to  leave 
its  unhappy  minority :  this  is  a  thing  that  we  must  keep  in  mind, 
that  while  any  plan  we  may  adopt  may  have  its  embarrassments, 
the  failure  to  adopt  a  plan  is  likely  to  result  in  the  most  serious 
and  most  tragic  embarrassment  of  all.  Not  the  effect  upon  the 
minds  of  certain  people,  but  the  effect  upon  the  kingdom  of 
Christ  of  our  failure  to  negotiate  to  a  successful  conclusion  is 
what  we  must  consider.  At  this  hour,  when  we  have  been  march- 
ing together  so  splendidly  in  the  Centenary  campaign  and  have 
put  on  a  great  exhibit  that  is  challenging  the  attention  of  Amer- 
ica, I  wonder  what  we  might  not  be  able  to  do  if  we  would  really 
get  together  in  one  great  united  Church.  The  day  is  done  for  a 
sectional  Church  in  America.  The  day  is  gone  by  for  a  South- 
ern Methodism  or  for  a  Northern  Methodism.  America  is  united 
to-day.  Was  it  not  Brother  Hines  who  brought  in  one  of  your 
Southern  papers,  during  one  of  our  meetings,  which  contained 
this  beautiful  poem — 

Here's  to  the  Blue  of  the  wind-swept  North 

When  we  meet  on  the  fields  of  France ; 
May  the  spirit  of  Grant  be  with  you  all 

As  the  sons  of  the  North  advance! 

And  here's  to  the  Gray  of  the  sun-kissed  South 

When  we  meet  on  the  plains  of  France; 
May  the  spirit  of  Lee  be  with  you  all 

As  the  sons  of  the  South  advance. 

And  here's  to  the  Blue  and  the  Gray  as  one 

When  we  meet  on  the  plains  of  Fiance; 
May  the  Spirit  of  God  be  with  you  all 

As  the  sons  of  the  flag  advance! 


Cleveland  Meet  inn 


$69 


That  is  the  spirit  of  America.  Right  in  this  city  two  months 
ago  I  heard  your  own  Dean  Plato  Durham  say  that  last  Septem- 
ber when  the  English  were  advancing  against  the  Germans  and 
had  driven  them  back  until  they  had  entrenched  themselves  be- 
hind the  famous  Hindenburg  line,  and  it  was  the  toughest  propo- 
sition the  British  had  ever  faced,  word  was  sent  to  General 
Pershing  asking  if  there  were  any  American  divisions  who  could 
break  through  the  German  position.  Pershing  ordered  up  the 
27th  New  York  and  the  30th  Carolina.  They  came  up  under 
the  cover  of  darkness.  In  the  mist  of  the  dawn  they  lined  up  to 
go  over  the  top.  A  young  Carolina  captain  found  himself  side 
by  side  with  a  New  York  captain.  He  raised  his  hand  in  salute 
and  said,  "Carolina,  ready  to  die,  salutes  New  York."  Instantly 
the  New  York  captain  came  to  attention  and  said,  "New  York, 
ready  to  die,  salutes  Carolina."  Then  they  went  over  the  top 
together.  You  know  the  rest.  Brethren,  you  may  make  up  your 
minds  to  this,  before  God;  that  these  boys  of  ours  who  have  gone 
into  the  valley  of  the  shadow  of  death  and  faced  hell  itself  side 
by  side  are  not  coming  back  with  much  toleration  for  a  sectional 
Church.  I  tell  you  that  a  divided  Church  can  never  save  a 
united  America.  It  is  things  like  this  that  ought  to  force  this 
Commission  to  get  a  toe  hold  here  somewhere  and  say,  "God 
helping  us,  we  will  stay  by  this  proposition  until  we  get  our 
two  Churches  to  come  to  an  understanding  so  that  we  may  go 
out  unitedly  in  this  new  day  to  make  the  full  impact  of  a  united 
Church  upon  the  life  of  America  and  the  life  of  the  world. 

Bishop  McDowell :  In  response  to  what  I  understand  to  be  the 
request  of  Dr.  Thomas,  I  renew  the  motion  for  an  adjournment 
in  order  that  separate  sessions  may  be  held  if  desired.  I  suggest 
that  we  adjourn  until  to-morrow  morning. 

Ira  E.  Robinson :  Why  cannot  we  come  together  in  night  ses- 
sion? 

A  Delegate :  We  have  never  got  anywhere  by  night  sessions. 

Ira  E.  Robinson:  We  are  all  here  in  the  same  hotel.  Laymen 
have  other  business  than  this.  To  be  sure,  this  is  of  utmost  im- 
portance; but  we  have  other  business.  I  agree  with  Dr.  Blake 
that  we  ought  to  stay  with  this  business.  But  since  we  are  all 
located  in  this  hotel,  we  could  have  a  night  session  of  an  hour. 

J.  F.  Goucher:  If  it  is  necessary  or  desirable  for  the  Com- 
missions to  meet  separately,  it  is  equally  necessary  and  desirable 
that  they  have  some  time  in  which  to  meet.  It  is  hardly  worth 
while  for  us  to  come  together  after  ten  o'clock  at  night.  I  think 
we  would  better  come  together  in  the  morning. 

It  was  voted  unanimously  to  meet  at  nine  o'clock  Wednesday 
morning. 

Announcements  were  made,  the  doxology  was  sung,  and  the 
session  closed  with  the  benediction  pronounced  by  Dr.  Nast. 


3io    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


THIRD  DAY,  WEDNESDAY,  JULY  9,  1919. 

The  meeting  was  called  to  order  by  the  Chairman,  Bishop 
Mouzon. 

The  hymn,  "My  faith  looks  up  to  Thee,"  was  sung. 

Rev.  E.  M.  Randall  read  the  sixty-seventh  Psalm. 

Mr.  John  R.  Pepper  and  Judge  Pollock  offered  prayer. 

The  members  joined  in  repeating  the  Lord's  Prayer. 

The  minutes  of  the  last  session  were  read,  and  approved  with 
slight  corrections. 

The  roll  was  called  and  the  following  were  present:  Bishops 
Earl  Cranston,  W.  F.  McDowell,  R.  J.  Cooke,  E.  D.  Mouzon, 
J.  M.  Moore,  James  Cannon,  Jr.  Ministers :  Edgar  Blake,  D. 
G.  Downey,  J.  F.  Goucher,  R.  E.  Jones,  Frank  Neff,  E.  M.  Ran- 
dall, C.  B.  Spencer,  J.  W.  Van  Cleve,  J.  J.  Wallace,  F.  M.  North, 
W.  J.  Young,  C.  M.  Bishop,  T.  N.  Ivey,  A.  F.  Watkins,  A.  J. 
Lamar,  P.  H.  Linn,  C.  C.  Selecman,  J.  E.  Dickey.  Laymen :  A. 
W.  Harris,  C.  W.  Kinne,  Ira  E.  Robinson,  E.  L.  Kidney,  Alex. 
Simpson,  Jr.,  C.  A.  Pollock,  M.  L.  Walton,  P.  D.  Maddin,  J.  R. 
Pepper,  R.  S.  Hyer,  J.  H.  Reynolds,  R.  E.  Blackwell,  T.  D. 
Samford,  J.  G.  McGowan. 

Bishop  Cranston  took  the  chair. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  rise  to  a  question  affecting  the  rules  of 
procedure  and  the  privileges  of  the  house.  Rule  7,  adopted  at 
Baltimore,  says :  "The  deliberations  of  the  Joint  Commission 
shall  be  in  secret  session,  and  its  proceedings  shall  not  be  dis- 
closed until  final  action  shall  have  been  taken  and  officially  pro- 
mulgated, except  by  order  of  the  Joint  Commission."  Monday, 
by  vote  of  the  Joint  Commission,  following  a  separate  vote  taken 
by  each  Commission,  we  admitted  to  the  sessions  of  the  Joint 
Commission  the  representatives  of  our  official  press.  I  rise 
simply  to  call  attention  to  the  fact,  in  my  judgment,  that  they 
are  admitted  under  this  rule,  and  that  the  proceedings  are  ex- 
ecutive proceedings,  to  which  they  are  admitted,  and  they  are 
here  just  as  we  are  here,  under  this  rule.  I  felt  it  was  fair  to 
them,  perhaps  not  knowing  of  the  existence  of  such  a  rule,  that 
I  should  call  public  attention  to  it. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  am  sure  that  all  of  us  are  very  grateful  to 
Bishop  McDowell  for  calling  this  rule  to  the  attention,  not  only 
of  the  editors,  but  of  members. 

Bishop  McDowell:  I  did  not  feel  the  necessity  of  that. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  am  sure  that  if  we  may  judge  from  what 
has  transpired  in  the  past  the  members  of  the  committee  have 
been  quite  unconscious  of  the  existence  of  this  rule. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  The  Secretary  will  please 
give  us  the  status  of  the  discussion  yesterday  when  we  adjourned. 

The  Secretary :  We  were  discussing  the  report. 


Cleveland  Meeting 


The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  We  had  before  us  two  re- 
ports, majority  and  minority,  with  a  motion  to  substitute  the 
minority  report  for  the  majority  report.  The  debate  was  pro- 
ceeding when,  by  request  of  one  of  the  Commissions,  the  joint 
session  closed  for  the  day.  A  discussion  on  the  report  is  in  order. 
If  no  one  desires  to  speak,  the  Chair  will  put  the  question. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  do  not  rise  to  speak.  I  only  rise  to  say 
that,  if  you  are  about  to  put  the  motion  for  the  substitution  of 
the  minority  for  the  majority  report,  we  think  we  ought  to  under- 
stand the  method  of  our  parliamentary  procedure,  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  there  is  a  slight  difference  of  usage  among  us.  That  is, 
we  very  often  make  two  bites  of  a  substitute.  We  first  accept 
it  and  then  have  a  motion  for  the  adoption  of  it.  The  acceptance 
of  a  substitute  simply  puts  it  before  the  house  in  place  of  the 
original  motion.  I  am  not  at  all  careful  as  to  what  the  method 
of  procedure  shall  be  in  this  case,  but  only  that  we  shall  pro- 
ceed with  a  perfect  understanding  and  not  find  ourselves  in  a 
tangle  after  taking  a  vote  on  this  matter.  I  therefore  suggest 
that  the  vote  on  Dr.  Lamar's  motion  to  substitute  the  minority 
report  for  the  majority  report  shall  be  regarded  as  being  equiva- 
lent, if  it  should  carry,  to  the  adoption  of  the  minority  report, 
and  that  the  single  vote  be  all  that  is  necessary,  instead  of  the 
double  vote  that  we  ourselves  sometimes  use.  Do  I  make  that 
perfectly  clear? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Have  we  any  rule  on  that? 
Bishop  McDowell  :  We  have  no  rule.    Our  usage  sometimes 
differs. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  The  Chair  understands 
that  under  our  procedure  the  acceptance  of  a  report  gives  it 
precedence.  Bishop  McDowell's  motion  is —  I  am  not  sure  that 
I  heard  a  second. 

The  motion  was  now  seconded. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Bishop  McDowell's  mo- 
tion is  that  in  the  vote  on  the  substitution  of  the  minority  for 
the  majority  report  an  affirmative  vote  be  considered  decisive — 
that  is,  equivalent  to  the  adoption  of  the  minority  report. 

F.  M.  Thomas :  I  am  not  going  to  burden  you  with  a  speech. 
I  had  a  serious  touch  of  insomnia  since  I  have  been  here,  and 
my  head  is  not  much  like  the  head  I  have  had  down  South.  May 
I  say  this,  and  I  speak  out  of  my  heart,  there  are  some  of  us 
here  who  have  labored  long  and  prayerfully  for  unification? 

A.  F.  Watkins :  If  Dr.  Thomas  will  please  excuse  me,  I  do  not 
wish  to  interrupt  him,  but  there  is  a  motion  stated  by  the  Chair 
which  has  not  been  put  to  vote. 

R.  E.  Blackwell :  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  know  exactly 
what  the  difference  between  the  reports  as  to  the  question  of 
proportionate  representation  is.   That  is,  what  we  are  to  vote  on  ? 


312    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  The  question  now  is  on  a 
matter  of  parliamentary  procedure.  I  will  state  the  motion  again: 
it  is  that  the  acceptance  of  the  substitute  in  place  of  the  ma- 
jority report  shall  be  considered  equivalent  to  the  adoption  of 
the  substitute.  So  that  makes  this  vote  decisive  of  the  main 
question. 

Bishop  McDowell:  That  is  all  my  motion  involved.  It  is  just 
an  interpretation,  and  does  not  put  the  question  as  to  the  adop- 
tion of  the  report  at  all.  It  only  puts  the  question  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  vote  when  we  take  it. 

P.  D.  Maddin :  I  do  not  understand,  or  else  am  misinformed. 
I  do  not  understand  that  if  we  put  the  motion  to  adopt  a  minority 
report,  and  that  fails,  it  is  equivalent  to  adopting  a  majority  re- 
port. 

Bishop  McDowell :  It  does  not.  The  only  question  is  a  ques- 
tion of  attitude  to  the  difference  of  procedure  in  the  two  bodies. 
In  our  bodies  we  very  often  first  of  all  take  the  vote  upon  the 
acceptance  of  the  substitute — the  minority  report  in  this  case. 
When  that  vote  is  taken,  if  it  is  affirmative,  then  the  minority 
report  is  before  the  body  for  adoption,  which  is  done  by  a  second 
motion.  If,  now,  the  vote  on  the  acceptance  of  the  minority  re- 
port as  a  substitute  for  the  majority  report  should  fail  to  carry, 
then  the  majority  report  is  before  the  house  for  action.  All  I 
wanted  was  to  make  perfectly  clear  that  the  action  upon  Dr. 
Lamar's  motion  for  the  substitution  of  the  minority  report  for 
the  majority  report  should  be  perfectly  understood  when  we 
come  to  take  it. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  motion  was  carried. 

Bishop  McDowell :  Now  the  motion  to  substitute  the  minority 
for  the  majority  report  is  before  us. 

F.  M.  Thomas:  I  am  not  going  to  make  a  speech.  I  am  not 
physically  able  to  do  so.  But  I  feel  that  in  all  the  negotiations 
of  the  Joint  Commission  this  is  perhaps  the  most  critical  hour 
we  have  approached,  for  the  Commission,  for  American  Meth- 
odism, and  for  the  world.  We  are  confronted  by  the  possibility 
of  the  unification  of  two  of  the  most  potential  religious  forces 
on  earth.  We  are  also  confronted  with  the  possibilities  of  evil 
contained  in  unwise  action.  I  heard  it  stated  yesterday,  by  breth- 
ren for  whom  I  have  the  highest  esteem  and  appreciation,  that 
there  is  no  difference  between  these  two  reports.  Brethren,  in 
my  judgment  (and  I  have  thought  through  the  matter  for  many 
years),  there  is  a  difference  between  these  two  reports  almost  as 
deep  as  life  itself.  And  that  question  is  the  question  of  the  right 
of  certain  groups  of  people  to  determine  the  destinies  of  other 
groups  of  people.  That  is  the  basic  principle.  It  is  a  question 
of  the  interpretation  of  human  life  that  we  are  dealing  with  here 
this  morning,  and  not  a  mere  matter  of  carpenter  work.  Your 


Cleveland  Meeting 


Church  has  come  to  be  the  mightiest  evangelistic  Church  on 
earth,  under  the  working,  at  least  in  one  department  of  your 
life,  of  one  of  the  concepts  presented  in  one  of  these  reports, 
the  majority  report.  The  Church,  South,  has  through  suffering 
and  tremendous  vicissitudes  come  to  be,  perhaps  with  the  ex- 
ception of  the  Southern  Baptist  Church,  the  most  potential 
homogeneous  body  on  earth,  working  under  another  concept  of 
life.  I  will  say  very  frankly,  brethren,  that  the  concept  pre- 
sented in  the  minority  report  differs  somewhat  (I  will  not  say 
from  the  concept  of  my  Church,  but  I  will  say)  from  the  con- 
cept that  has  prevailed  in  the  political  and  social  life  of  the  sec- 
tion that  we  represent,  in  the  years  that  are  gone.  This  minority 
report  registers  a  new  approach  of  the  Southern  mind  and  heart 
to  the  very  gravest  problem  that  lies  at  its  heart.  In  my  judg- 
ment, the  majority  report  registers  an  approach  to  the  same 
grave  problem  which  is  far  beyond  the  thought  of  the  present 
South  to-day.  I  haue  been  hoping,  brethren,  I  have  been  pray- 
ing, and  I  have  toiled,  with  the  exception  of  Bishop  Cranston, 
for  unification  as  much  as  any  man  living.  I  have  hoped  that 
we  might,  under  God,  be  able  together  here  to  formulate  some 
concept  of  this  great  problem,  which  is  not  only  an  American 
but  a  world  problem,  a  problem  that  confronts  the  English  em- 
pire, which  would  register  a  just  world  concept  in  the  light  of 
Christian  thought  upon  this  problem ;  that  it  might  be  so  framed 
that  it  would  be  a  beacon  light  for  all  Christians  everywhere  in 
dealing  with  the  various  races  of  the  world  throughout  the  years 
to  come.  I  do  not  say  that  my  own  is  the  Christian  concept.  I 
would  not  dare  say  that  yours  is  not.  You  believe  it  to  be.  And 
you  have  done  magnificent  work  for  Christ  under  that  concept. 
But,  brethren,  the  two  concepts  are  different — irreconcilably  dif- 
ferent. And  I  believe,  if  you  will  allow  me  to  say  so  very  frank- 
ly, that  the  adoption  of  either  concept  would  create  storm  and 
confusion  in  that  branch  of  Methodism  which  was  confronted 
by  a  concept  that  it  had  long  opposed.  Now,  brethren,  we  are 
instructed  to  bring  about  unification.  I  believe  that  this  means 
the  unification  of  American  Methodism  and  not  of  a  part  of  it. 
I  tell  you  frankly,  brethren  (I  may  be  mistaken),  there  are  men 
here  from  my  section  of  the  country,  though  I  am  perhaps  the 
most  isolated  man  in  my  section,  having  spent  my  life  entirely 
on  the  border — but  I  do  say  this  very  frankly  (I  may  be  mis- 
taken), I  question  whether  a  large  part  of  Southern  Methodism 
could  be  adjusted  to  the  concept  framed  in  the  majority  report. 
It  is  not  a  concept  that  is  indigenous  to  Southern  life.  It  is  a 
conception  that  has  prevailed  elsewhere.  It  is  a  question  of 
how  far  races  that  have  progressed  in  life  can  determine  the 
destinies  of  other  races  less  progressive.  That  is  the  question. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  adoption  of  the  minority  report  might 


314    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

work  incalculable  harm  to  your  own  great  communion.  And  to 
you  brethren  I  will  say  this  frankly,  as  much  as  I  desire  unifi- 
cation, I  would  not,  under  God,  be  an  unconscious  instrument 
or  a  designing  instrument  in  carrying  a  definite  line  of  cleavage 
into  your  own  great  Church.  But  if  a  large  majority  should  pre- 
fer the  majority  report,  then  we  in  the  South  would  be  con- 
fronted with  carrying  to  our  people  a  concept  of  right  entirely 
different  from  that  which  they  have  held.  It  is  very  difficult 
to  change  men's  opinions.  And  in  the  attempt  to  change  these 
opinions,  even  if  we  admit,  which  I  do  not  admit,  that  the  best 
Southern  opinion  is  wrong,  we  should  find  ourselves  confronted 
with  the  fifty  years'  drift  of  a  people's  life.  The  Lord  Provost 
of  Scotland,  Provost  Salmon,  said  that  the  longer  he  lived  the 
more  he  was  convinced  that  men  were  not  governed  by  logic  but 
by  deeper  causes.  And  you  will  find  yourselves  confronted  by 
that  drift,  and  we  shall  find  ourselves  confronted  by  that  drift. 
And  while  I  admit  that  unification  is  most  desirable,  and  while  I 
admit  that  there  are  men  here  who  believe  that  unification  is 
supreme  to  everything  else,  I  believe  that  it  would  be  the  part  of 
wisdom  (This  is  no  tactical  move,  brethren.  I  do  not  know  how 
the  members  of  my  Commission  may  vote  on  this.  I  perhaps 
may  know  their  preferences,  but  that  is  merely  a  guess) — I  be- 
lieve it  would  be  the  part  of  wisdom  for  American  Methodism 
to  say,  loving  the  common  Christ  supremely,  that  we  find  our- 
selves in  the  last  analysis,  after  all  the  negotiations,  confronted 
with  two  irreconcilable  concepts  of  dealing  with  the  grave  prob- 
lem; and  therefore  we  judge  for  the  sake  of  the  kingdom  of 
Jesus  Christ  that  we  ought  to  delay  this  matter  until  there  can 
be  a  larger  and  a  more  widening  approach  to  this  problem.  We 
know  what  happens  when  the  attempt  is  made  to  unify  great 
Churches  sometimes.  And,  brethren,  say,  for  example,  the  ma- 
jority report  might  be  adopted.  If  there  should  be  a  small  loss 
— and  there  always  is  a  loss  in  unification — it  were  well  to  pay 
that  price  for  the  kingdom  of  God.  But  listen,  brethren,  the 
loss  of  the  major  portion,  or  the  best  portion,  of  that  great  homo- 
geneous Anglo-Saxon  territory  lying  east  of  the  Mississippi  and 
south  of  the  Ohio  River  would  be  a  tremendous  loss  to  Meth- 
odism. On  the  other  hand,  the  loss  to  your  Church  of  the  most 
virile,  potential,  splendid  body  of  Anglo-Saxon  virility  in  this 
great  middle  Northwest  would  be  an  incalculable  loss  to  Ameri- 
can Methodism.  So  I  believe  we  to-day  need  to  make  no  mis- 
take. I  know  that  men  in  their  anxiety  to  achieve  results  and 
to  put  plans  through,  and  after  all  these  years  of  labor  and  the 
cry  of  the  world  it  seems  a  pity  not  to  be  able  to  unite — but, 
brethren,  listen:  you  cannot  unify  two  irreconcilable  concepts 
of  life.  Those  concepts  have  got  to  be  adjusted.  Now,  listen. 
Let  me  state  these  concepts  as  I  see  them.   One  is  that  the  more 


Cleveland  Meeting 


3*5 


mature  race  has  for  a  time  the  right  to  determine  the  legal  status 
of  the  other.  Especially  so  is  the  society  which  the  stronger 
race  has  largely  made.  How  far  that  might  go,  I  will  not  say. 
The  other  is  the  power  of  every  man,  regardless  of  his  racial 
condition,  to  freely  function  in  Church  and  State.  The  concept 
that  underlies  the  majority  report  is  that  the  negro  membership 
within  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  shall  have  power  to  act 
freely  as  a  mature  man  in  reorganized  Methodism.  And  the 
concept  that  underlies  the  minority  report  is  that,  for  reasons 
that  need  not  be  mentioned  here,  reasons  that  I  could  justify 
to  myself,  you  must  in  some  measure  limit  that  capacity  and 
power.  And  I  want  to  say  to  you  very  frankly,  brethren,  that  if 
I  were  a  Northern  Commissioner,  and  I  believed  that  some  of 
my  colored  Conferences  had  come  to  their  full  manhood,  I  would 
not  submit  for  one  moment  to  placing  this  limitation  on  their 
power.  Now,  I  have  taken  this  position,  I  think,  in  distinction 
to  some  of  the  concepts  that  prevailed  in  the  Old  South.  If  you 
will  pardon  me,  when  I  stood  at  the  grave  of  John  Stewart  I 
tried  to  controvert  the  position  taken  by  Henry  W.  Grady  at  the 
Dallas  (Tex.)  State  Fair,  some  thirty  years  ago.  He  said  that 
there  were  ordained  places  for  races  in  this  world.  He  did 
not  believe  that  every  man,  regardless  of  color  or  previous  con- 
dition of  servitude,  could  come  to  full  development.  I  asserted 
that  when  a  man  has  come  to  his  full  development  he  has  a  right 
to  be  a  free  man  anywhere  in  both  Church  and  State.  I  believe 
that  until  he  does  mature,  both  in  State  and  Church,  there  should 
be  the  right  to  prescribe  some  of  his  privileges.  Now,  breth- 
ren, you  may  think  that  this  is  academic.  When  John  Locke 
formulated  his  reply  to  Hobbes  and  Filmer,  men  thought  it  was 
the  speculations  of  a  dilettante  philosopher.  And  yet  Mr.  Wil- 
son and  the  representatives  of  the  United  States  in  their  dealings 
with  the  peoples  of  the  world  have  but  enunciated  the  political 
philosophy  of  John  Locke,  and  all  the  fruitings  of  modern  liberty 
have  been  largely  the  offspring  of  that  academic  theory,  because 
in  the  long  run  you  cannot  escape  the  remorseless  flow  of  the 
truths  of  logic.  If  we  of  the  South  should  vote  for  this  ma- 
jority report,  we  should  find  ourselves  confronted  with  the  logic 
of  Southern  life,  with  the  drift  of  our  people.  And  listen,  breth- 
ren, we  should  find  ourselves  confronted  with  the  gravest  social 
problem  that  ever  was  placed  upon  the  heart  of  a  people.  The 
men  who  live  under  the  shadow  of  that  do  not  always  reason 
calmly.  And,  as  I  see  it,  if  we  of  the  Southern  Commission 
should  vote  for  the  majority  report,  we  should  carry  to  our  peo- 
ple a  position  which — as  I  see  in  my  looking  at  life,  from  my 
standpoint  of  the  interrelationships  of  men  and  their  functions 
in  human  society — I  cannot  defend,  much  as  I  love  unification. 
The  other  night,  worn  and  weary  and  unable  to  sleep,  burdened 


516    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

with  the  world's  problem  and  our  problem,  I  said  to  God  in  the 
silences  that  if  I  could  bring  about  the  unification  of  American 
Methodism  wisely,  I  would  be  willing  to  forego  the  pleasure  of 
seeing  my  Kentucky  home  again,  I  would  be  willing  not  to  see 
that  dear  mother  who  still  lives,  I  would  be  willing  not  to  kiss 
again  my  wife  and  dear  children,  but  to  die  to-night,  passing  so 
from  this  fleeting,  transitory  world  into  the  beautiful  presence 
of  my  Redeemer,  if  thereby  I  could  bring  about  wisely  the  re- 
union of  American  Methodism.  Brethren,  allow  me  to  say  it 
frankly — frankly  and  honestly  in  the  fear  of  God — I  do  not  be- 
lieve that  either  one  of  these  propositions  will  bring  about  wisely 
the  unification  of  American  Methodism.  If  the  majority  of  our 
Commissions  should  vote  for  your  proposition,  in  the  great  heart 
of  the  South  you  might  face  immeasurable  loss.  If  the  minority 
report  should  be  adopted,  I  am  satisfied  that  you  could  not  get 
it  through  your  General  Conference,  with  the  present  attitude 
toward  the  question.  I  do  not  know  what  to  suggest.  Brethren, 
you  are  facing  a  crisis.  And  listen !  Would  it  not  be  better  to 
wait?  Would  it  not  be  better  to  say  that  we  find  ourselves  con- 
fronted with  two  different  ideas  which  at  present  are  irreconcila- 
ble? Shall  we  not  continue  to  love  each  other?  Shall  we  not 
work  together  and  try  to  help  each  other,  rather  than  do  some- 
thing that  might  impair  the  beauty  of  that  sublime  Church  of 
God,  that  glorious  Methodism  that  is  some  time  coming,  is  sure 
to  come?  And  listen!  I  am  too  tired  and  exhausted  to  speak 
further.  You  will  pardon  me.  I  have  spoken  out  of  my  heart, 
cis  a  man  who  went  against  the  current  of  Southern  Methodism 
for  some  years  in  developing  the  spirit  of  unification.  Let  me 
leave  this  with  you,  as  a  legend  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Men 
longed  to  see  the  City  of  God,  the  Kingdom  of  God.  Men  sought 
it  in  various  ways,  hastening  over  land  and  sea.  There  was  a 
man  who  toiled  in  the  thick  underbrush  there.  He  cut  his  way 
painfully,  sometimes  exhausted,  sometimes  despairing,  sometimes 
doubting  if  the  underbrush  and  the  tangled  vines  and  the  accre- 
tions of  the  years  would  ever  break  away  so  that  he  might  see 
through.  But  he  toiled  on,  he  prayed  on,  and  he  bled  on,  slowly, 
painfully,  for  the  price  was  great,  until  at  last  the  last  barrier 
fell,  the  last  tangled  vine  gave  way,  and  there  in  the  distance, 
as  beautiful  as  the  morning,  all  complete  and  glorious,  was  the 
City  of  God ! 

C.  C.  Selecman :  I  rise  not  to  make  a  speech,  but  to  make  a 
motion,  to  amend  the  minority  report  in  two  respects.  First, 
with  reference  to  the  word  "missionary,"  which  characterizes1 
the  second  group  of  Regional  Conferences  as  set  forth  in  this 
minority  report;  and,  secondly,  with  reference  to  the  classification 
of  the  Regional  Conference  for  Colored  People  with  the  colored 
people  in  Africa.    I  desire  to  move  that  we  strike  out  the  word 


Cleveland  Meeting 


317 


"missionary"  in  the  first  line  of  paragraph  1  of  that  report.  That 
would  be  to  strike  out  the  word  "missionary"  and  insert  the 
word  "additional."  I  do  not  believe  that  anything  is  to  be  gained 
by  reminding  people  either  in  America  or  elsewhere  that  they 
are  missionary  territory,  any  more  than  something  is  to  be  gained 
by  reminding  people  to  whom  we  offer  help  or  charity  that  they 
are  objects  of  charity.  I  also  desire  to  move  that  this  motion 
shall  include  the  addition  of  the  words  "in  America,"  in  the  sec- 
ond line  of  the  first  paragraph,  so  that  it  shall  read,  "1.  A 
Regional  Conference  of  Colored  People  in  America." 

Bishop  Cranston :  Would  it  not  be  better  to  keep  those  motions 
apart,  to  test  one  and  then  the  other,  whichever  you  prefer  first? 
You  complicate  the  discussion. 

C.  C.  Selecman :  I  would  be  glad  to  make  the  motion  in  that 
way.  First,  the  elimination  of  the  word  "missionary"  and  the 
substitution  of  the  word  "additional,"  so  that  it  shall  read  that 
there  "shall  be  the  following  additional  Regional  Conferences." 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  do  not  understand  that  the  word  "mis- 
sionary" is  in  that  report. 

Bishop  Cannon:  Two  members  of  the  committee  said  they 
had  understood  it  would  be  in,  and  so,  to  command  the  support 
of  all,  it  was  seconded. 

The  Chair  stated  the  motion  as  above  set  forth. 

C.  B.  Spencer :  I  wish  there  were  some  method  possible  for 
providing  that  the  second  part  of  Dr.  Selecman's  motion  might 
be  made  effective.  It  is  that  the  words  "in  America"  be  added 
to  the  minority  report,  representing  the  mind  of  the  Southern; 
members  of  the  Committee  on  Conference  with  reference  to  the 
Regional  Conference  for  Colored  People.  I  know  it  is  most  per- 
plexing to  construct  the  details  of  the  polity  for  reorganized 
Methodism  and  provide  for  the  work  we  are  doing,  and  together 
will  be  doing,  in  Southern  Africa,  without  linking  that  work  in 
with  our  American  colored  membership  in  that  or  some  such 
manner.  At  the  same  time  it  must  appear  to  be  all  that  such  an> 
arrangement  is,  a  great  defeat,  because  it  really  forces  the  legis- 
lation and  management  of  our  colored  Churches  and  institutions 
here  in  America  under  the  possible  control  of  the  membership 
we  are  gathering  in  native  Africa.  What  could  be  more  incon- 
gruous than  that?  There  is  nothing  in  common  between  the 
negroes  of  the  United  States  and  the  negroes  in  Africa.  Long 
since,  even  the  blood  has  ceased  to  be  the  same,  so  far  as  that 
goes.  Biologically  they  are  not  the  same.  And  so  far  as  making 
it  possible  for  the  raw  natives  of  the  Congo,  or  elsewhere,  who 
never  have  tasted  of  civilization,  and  have  not  even  a  written 
language,  to  have  a  voice,  in  directing  the  colored  work  in  this 
country,  it  is  a  hazard  and  a  depreciation  of  our  own  work  past, 
present,  and  future,  which  ought  to  be  avoided  if  possible.  I 


318    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


spoke  of  this  at  Savannah,  and  only  refer  to  it  now.  As  we 
proceed  with  our  labors,  I  believe  some  way  out  will  be  found. 
Incidentally,  let  me  ask,  If  this  minority  report  is  adopted,  what 
will  be  its  effects  upon  the  colored  membership  of  the  reorganized 
Church?  I  have  here  the  report  of  the  Commission  on  Unifica- 
tion submitted  to  the  General  Conference  at  Atlanta.  On  page 
38  I  read  that  Dr.  Lamar  called  for  the  reading  of  the  resolution 
adopted  February  2  by  the  Commission  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  which  reads : 

The  Commission  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  has 
taken  the  following  action.  It  took  action  by  amending  the  report  of 
the  Joint  Committee  of  Eight  as  follows  : 

Add  to  the  recommendation  on  the  fourth  page  the  following:  Pro- 
vided, that  if  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  decides  to  become 
a  part  of  the  proposed  organization,  the  colored  members  of  the  reor- 
ganized Church  shall  have  and  are  hereby  granted  the  privilege  of  or- 
ganization into  an  Associate  General  Conference  in  accordance  with  the 
plan  herein  provided.  In  the  event  that  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  should  not  accept  the  invitation  to  join  in  the  organization  of  an 
Associate  Regional  or  Associate  General  Conference,  as  proposed  above, 
the  Regional  Conferences  within  the  territory  predominantly  Southern 
Methodist  territory  shall  be  allowed  to  direct  their  contributions  for  the 
colored  work  to  the  benefit  of  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

If  all  that  stands,  are  we  not  face  to  face  with  another  anomaly 
— namely,  adopting  and  imbedding  in  our  organic  law  two  con- 
tradictory principles?  On  the  one  hand  we  declare  for  negro 
membership  in  the  reorganized  Church,  and  at  the  same  time 
we  declare  that  if  a  colored  Church  does  not  see  fit  to  come  with 
us,  but  arrays  itself  against  the  principles  for  which  we  stand 
and  becomes  a  rival  in  the  same  community,  that  portion  of  the 
white  reorganized  Church  which  is  right  there  on  the  ground 
where  the  rivalry  exists,  and  where  altar  stands  against  altar, 
''shall  be  allowed  to  direct  their  contributions  for  colored  work- 
to  the  benefit  of  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,"  and 
thus  throws  its  full  weight  of  support  and  indorsement  and  en- 
couragement to  the  antagonistic  and  rival  principle.  If  as  a 
Joint  Commission  we  declare  that  the  work  of  the  reorganized 
Church  amongst  its  own  colored  members  is  a  "missionary" 
work,  as  the  report  brought  in  by  Bishop  Cannon  proposes, 
whilst  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  no  such 
disparagements;  if  our  colored  people  have  laid  on  them  the 
burden  of  Africans,  just  from  the  jungle,  voting  as  to  the  policy 
of  the  colored  work  in  the  Church;  and  if,  especially,  this  sub- 
tle discrimination  of  the  reorganized  Church  that  is  on  the 
ground,  there  where  its  influence  will  be  daily  felt,  undercutting 
its  own  whilst  it  contributes  to  the  other,  what  will  the  effect 
be  upon  the  colored  membership  of  the  Churches  where  this  is 
going  on?   We  all  understand  the  laws  of  psychology  well  enough 


Cleveland  Meeting 


3*9 


to  understand  what  the  tendency  will  be — what  the  outcome  will 
be.  Those  who  to-day  stand  for  the  principle  of  colored  mem- 
bers in  the  new  Church  will  be  far  away,  in  distant  regional 
jurisdictions.  The  only  white  Methodists  the  colored  people 
will  know  will,  by  their  attitude  and  every  cent  of  their  contri- 
bution, be  contradicting  and  depreciating  the  basic  principle  of 
the  reorganized  Church.  What  it  will  mean  in  the  long  run,  I 
shrink  from  speculating  upon  it.  It  may  be  a  doing  by  indirec- 
tion what  we  declare  against  in  principle.  And  this  brings  me 
to  a  final  thought  which  is  germane  to  this  whole  business.  I 
am  led  to  speak  of  it  by  the  speech  of  Dr.  Thomas  a  few  min- 
utes ago.  I  was  much  stirred  by  the  spirit  and  the  matter  of 
Dr.  Thomas  in  the  deep  and  essential  speech  he  made  a  few  min- 
utes ago.  It  will  be  a  thing  incredible  that  any  member  of  this 
Joint  Commission  should  go  away  and  throw  stones  at  the  op- 
posite Commission ;  for  in  providing  in  any  manner  for  the  black 
man,  we  are  trying  to  solve  a  question  which  historically  seems 
to  be  insoluble.  I  go  back  over  the  studies  I  have  been  making 
during  the  past  ten  years  into  the  deeper  phases  of  this  race 
problem,  and — I  confess  it  with  a  deep  sorrow — I  sympathize 
in  some  measure  with  those  who  say  the  race  problem  is  in- 
soluble— that  heredity,  that  race  prejudice,  scarcely  can  yield 
even  to  the  gospel.  Understand :  Race  prejudice  is  not  of  neces- 
sity a  bad  word.  It  may  be  bad ;  as  we  see  it  in  practice  it  often 
is,  showing  itself  not  only  in  race  antipathy,  but  in  the  fearful 
exhibitions  of  race  hate.  But  the  prejudice  of  race  may  not  im- 
ply these  things.  It  may  mean  race  feeling,  race  consciousness, 
race  pride,  race  protection.  If  it  means  a  prejudice  in  favor 
of  race  purity  and  race  protection  and  keen  help  all  the  way 
round,  it  may  be  a  source  of  uplift,  of  solidarity,  and  mutual 
help,  all  the  way  round.  Thus  a  race  is  taught  to  lift  itself ;  and 
at  the  same  time,  if  there  is  an  interracial  brotherhood,  white 
hand  in  black  hand,  white  hand  in  yellow  hand,  all  the  great 
races  can  go  forward  and  upward  side  by  side.  May  I  repeat 
it,  for  that  is  the  greatest  boon  the  reorganized,  world-girding 
Methodist  Church  of  the  future  can  bring  mankind,  the  spectacle 
of  providing  for  race  help  through  race  solidarity,  and  getting 
together  in  mutuality  to  help  as  in  the  uplift  of  a  geological, 
gradual,  granitelike  emerging  of  a  new  world  order.  Some  way 
will  be  found  as  we  go  forward,  considering  the  distances  we 
have  already  traveled  in  this  Joint  Commission.  I  am  sure  some 
way  will  be  discovered,  as  we  go  forward,  which  will  obviate 
this  deadening  presence  of  race  separation  to  defeat  what  we 
will  together  stand  for  in  our  ideal.  I  was  just  speaking  of  the 
emerging  of  a  new  world  order.  Mr.  Chairman,  it  has  a  great 
significance  for  us  as  creators  under  God  of  the  new  Methodism. 
They  tell  us  that  since  the  world  war  we  are  coming  into  a  new 


320    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


order  of  things;  that  we  are  in  the  Second  Series  of  the  Year 
of  our  Lord — Anno  Domini,  Second  Series,  Year  One !  They 
say  that  new  currents,  new  ideals,  are  blowing  like  the  winds 
of  God  over  the  face  of  the  earth.  They  say  that  Methodism 
is  potentially  the  greatest  connectional,  concrete  expression  of 
Protestant  evangelism  and  religion  throughout  the  length  and 
breadth  of  the  earth.  And  now  the  question  that  faces  us 
to-day  is  whether  we  shall  imbed  in  this  new  force  that  we  are 
to  let  loose  upon  the  world,  the  effect  of  which  we  cannot  com- 
pute, which  will  be  age-long  and  centuries-long — whether  or  not 
we  shall  so  handle  this  racial  question  as  to  make  it  possible  to 
contribute  something  to  the  solution  of  a  question  that  is  older 
than  Babylon  or  Tyre.  We  may  think  that  it  will  not  matter 
much.  I  presume  that  when  they  laid  the  foundation  of  caste 
in  India  it  was  looked  upon  as  a  very  incidental  and  trifling  thing. 
Yet,  over  there,  long  ago  in  the  ages  when  they  were  building 
for  the  second  time  the  Temple  of  Solomon,  there  was  imbedded 
in  their  religious  doctrine  a  color  line — a  discrimination  between 
races  on  account  of  color;  for  the  word  "caste"  simply  means 
color.  What  has  happened?  Why,  the  color  line  of  caste  is. so 
drawn  that  Christianity  has  scarcely  touched  the  life  of  India. 
And  if  Christ  brought  a  super-racial  gospel,  a  gospel  of  brother- 
hood for  all  mankind — if  Christ  came  to  save  the  world,  that 
color  line  must  give  way  in  India,  or  we  will  be  as  impotent  a 
thousand  years  from  now  as  we  are  to-day.  But  we  must  begin 
at  home.  And,  brothers,  it  seems  to  me  thn:-  with  the  organiza- 
tion of  Methodism  as  it  is  before  us  in  this  unofficial  document 
that  is  the  product  of  our  work  at  Savannah,  and  previously  and 
since,  providing  at  once  for  racial  solidarity  in  officers  and  legis- 
lation in  the  Regional  Conferences  and  inter-racial  or  super- 
racial  solidarity  in  the  General  Conference,  there  is — thank  God ! 
— a  solution ;  that  there  in  this  new  polity  we  can  let  loose  a 
force  throughout  the  earth  that  will  tend  to  solve  this  question 
which  has  been  so  insoluble.  It  is  all  foolishness,  in  my  thinking, 
to  think  about  this  general  plan,  as  it  is  here  in  this  document, 
as  causing  any  kind  of  racial  intermixtures  which  would  break 
down  any  of  those  concepts  of  which  Dr.  Thomas  has  spoken. 
Where  and  how  can  it  do  that?  But  it  does  place  the  Methodist 
Church,  the  reorganized  Methodist  Church,  as  a  daysman  or 
mediator  between  that  giant  white  god  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race 
and  that  immature  race,  if  you  wish  to  call  them  so,  of  the  col- 
ored membership  of  this  Church — reaching  its  influence  up  into 
millions  in  its  racial  members  of  both  colors  in  this  country  and 
in  all  countries — and  enable  us  to  do  a  work  which  cannot  be 
done  simply  by  mere  fraternity,  or  by  those  pleasant  rhetorical 
phrases,  by  means  of  which  it  is  proposed,  by  some,  to  bring 
simply  colored  Churches  within  arm's  length  of  each  other.  But 


Cleveland  Meeting 


2,21 


I  cannot  look  down  the  future  from  this  Judgment  Day,  at  this 
crisis  moment  in  this  Anno  Domini,  Second  Series,  Year  One, 
when  forces  are  here  and  now  being  unloosed  which  are  to  touch 
and  mold  and  direct  the  forces  of  mankind — I  cannot  look  upon 
it,  I  say,  with  anything  but  apprehension  that  we  should  make  a 
color  line  cleavage  between  races  and  in  the  name  of  God.  Are 
we  to  arrange  for  such  relations  between  these  races  as  will  hold 
one  of  them  at  arm's  length  with  some  sort  of  pleasant,  more  or 
less  superficial,  fraternity  and  cooperation?  Brothers,  the  thun- 
derbolts of  God  are  hot.  I  am  not  preaching  at  anybody,  least 
of  all  to  those  brothers  whom  I  esteem  so  highly  in  the  Church, 
South.  But  where  are  race  riots  to  break  out  next,  either  South 
or  North?  We  will  have  them  in  the  North  yet.  What  is  the 
condition  of  Russia  to-day?  It  is  the  outgrowth  of  persecution 
of  the  poor,  of  the  proletariat,  of  the  Jews,  coming  down  through 
the  bitter  ages.  It  is  that  Nemesis  which  shows  that  the  God  of 
the  universe  does  not  sleep.  Soviet  Russia  is  in  the  hands  of 
the  Jews.  Strange  retribution!  That  race  which  was  perse- 
cuted, which  was  detested,  has  leaped  up  on  the  springboard  of 
a  new  opportunity,  and  itself  is  laying  down  upon  Russia  some- 
thing of  that  which  Russia  in  previous  times  has  inflicted  upon 
them.  In  India  the  reaction  from  race  prejudice  and  segregation 
is  a  cobra  stroke  that  atrophies  the  heart  of  India,  and  makes 
India  the  open  sore  of  the  world.  And  who  can  read  the  future 
there  ?  I  do  not  know  that  I  made  my  point  clear.  I  will  simply 
go  over  the  points  again.  The  proposition  made  by  our  brother 
containing  the  official  disparagement  that  is  to  be  laid  down 
between  white  and  colored  members  of  our  Church — when  I  say 
"ours"  I  refer  alike  to  all  in  the  new  Church,  to  those  living  in 
Louisiana  and  to  those  living  in  Maine — by  calling  the  colored 
members  "missionary"  will  be  an  essential  disparagement  which 
will  all  the  time  gnaw  and  grind  at  every  one  of  them,  while  it 
exalts  a  discrimination  on  the  ground  of  color  for  which  the 
Church  organically  and  professionally,  at  least,  does  not  stand. 
And,  in  the  second  place,  it  will  project  upon  the  coming  ages 
from  the  mouth  of  possibly  the  most  democratic,  most  highly 
organized,  most  efficient,  most  abundantly  puissant  body  upon 
the  face  of  the  earth— it  will  project  out  upon  the  ages  the  old, 
old  cleavage,  writing  it  infinitely  more  insolubly  than  it  is  at 
this  moment,  and  inviting  upon  that  Church  which  we  represent 
to-day  and  that  reorganized  Church  which  we  will  represent 
to-morrow  that  which  we  see  in  India  and  in  Russia,  that  which 
is  the  inevitable  inheritance  of  those  who  forget  that  the  Watcher 
of  Men  does  not  sleep  and  that  He  holds  watch  over  and  calls 
to  retribution,  whether  good  or  bad,  all  of  us,  peoples  and  na- 
tions as  well  as  individuals. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  We  have  a  rule  limiting 
21 


322    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

speeches  to  ten  minutes,  and  providing  that  no  one  shall  speak 
twice  until  others  who  may  desire  shall  have  spoken.  The  breth- 
ren who  have  spoken  to  us  this  morning  have  been  speaking  under 
a  handicap.  The  rule  may  have  been  violated,  but  not  inten- 
tionally. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  Would  it  not  be  wiser,  brethren,  to  permit 
us  to  perfect  the  report  of  the  minority  before  going  so  far 
afield  in  your  discussion?  It  is  not  my  purpose  to  make  any 
reply  to  what  my  good  friend  Dr.  Spencer,  whom  I  have  known 
and  esteemed  most  highly  since  the  days  when  as  pastor  of  our 
Central  Church  in  Kansas  City  I  was  associated  with  him,  has 
said,  except  to  say  this :  It  is  a  little  surprising  that  he  is  so  far 
from  understanding  the  position  taken  by  the  brethren  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  I  could  make  my  own  al- 
most every  word  that  he  has  said.  He  totally  misunderstands 
the  position  taken  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
touching  this  whole  matter.  I  do  not  know  where  my  good 
friend  has  been  living.  He  does  not  seem  to  be  living  in  this 
modern  world,  and  he  does  not  seem  to  know  the  currents  of 
thought  that  are  running  through  the  country  and  through  the 
membership  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  How- 
ever, I  simply  rose  to  say  that  we  would  make  progress  if  we 
are  permitted  to  perfect  the  instrument  before  us,  this  report 
of  the  minority.  The  motion  has  been  made  to  amend  it  by 
striking  out  the  word  "missionary."  That  will  be  done  at  once, 
if  you  will  let  us  do  it;  and  then  another  motion  is  to  be  made 
striking  out  that  part  of  the  report  which  connects  the  work  of 
the  colored  people  in  America  with  the  work  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  among  the  negro  races  in  Africa.  That  ought 
to  be  done.  If  I  were  a  colored  man  living  in  America,  I  should 
object  to  being  associated  with  those  men  over  there  in  Africa. 
We  do  not  want  our  American  negroes  put  in  the  same  Regional 
Conference  with  men  in  Africa.  Let  us  perfect  that  minority 
report,  and  vote  on  striking  out  the  word  "missionary." 

D.  G.  Downey :  To  whom  does  Bishop  Mouzon  refer  when  he 
says  let  "us"  perfect  the  minority  report?  That  was  signed  by 
four  brethren  of  the  Church,  South.  Some  of  us  feel  delicate 
about  attempting  to  do  anything  with  that. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  The  motion  to  make  this 
change  came  from  a  member  of  the  Church,  South.  I  do  not 
see  anything  to  be  gained  by  discussing  in  a  general  way  this 
special  proposition,  though  it  includes  in  it  the  carrying  of  the 
whole  question. 

A.  W.  Harris :  What  I  desire  to  say  is  not  in  conflict  with 
what  Bishop  Mouzon  has  said,  for  I  plan  to  go  even  farther 
back  than  the  minority  report.  Our  ship  seems  to  be  nearing 
port.    It  will  not  be  a  waste  of  time  to  consult  the  chart.  The 


Cleveland  Meeting 


323 


part  of  it  written  at  Atlanta  contains  fifty-eight  words;  the  part 
written  at  Oklahoma  City  contains  ninety-two  words,  or  one  hun- 
dred and  nineteen  words,  including  recommendations.  The  orig- 
inal document  made  at  Chattanooga  contains  less  than  a  hun- 
dred words.  Let  me  read  only  what  is  essential;  the  full  state- 
ments you  have  before  you.  At  Atlanta  the  General  Conference 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  adopted  this:  "Re- 
solved, that  we  hereby  reaffirm  the  action  of  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1914."  We  may,  therefore,  devote  our  attention  to  the 
action  of  1914.  It  was:  "The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  regards  the  unification  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  as  feasible  and  de- 
sirable, and  hereby  declares  itself  in  favor  of  the  unification  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  in  accord  with  this  general  plan."  The  action 
at  Saratoga  uses  the  identical  word.  Chattanooga  suggests — « 
these  are  the  important  words — "Three  or  four  Quadrennial 
Conferences" ;  and,  "The  colored  membership  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  may  be  constituted  and  recognized  as  one 
of  the  Quadrennial  or  Jurisdictional  Conferences  of  the  pro- 
posed reorganization."  Let  us  apply  these  to  our  present  situa- 
tion. The  Commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
presented  through  Bishop  McDowell  a  proposal.  If  you  noticed 
it  carefully,  you  heard  the  following  words :  "In  our  opinion" — 
and  what  I  am  now  reading  is  of  very  vital  importance — "it 
is  now  desirable  to  make  clear  in  a  concrete  way  our  under- 
standing of  what  are  our  binding  instructions.  We  therefore 
say  that  we  regard  it  as  our  primary  instruction  to  obtain  unifi- 
cation, unification  by  reorganization,  reorganization  on  the  basis 
of  Regional  Conferences,  reorganization  in  loyal  accord  with  the 
Chattanooga  plan.  .  .  .  Recommended  modifications  of  the 
plan  we  do  not  regard  as  instructions.  There  now  remain  un- 
solved two  major  matters,  the  plan  for  Regional  Conferences 
and  the  problem  of  the  negro  membership.  A  general  provision 
for  the  creation  of  Regional  Conferences  has  been  adopted 
tentatively  by  the  necessary  vote.  But  no  detailed  plan  has  re- 
ceived the  approval  of  both  Commissions.  We  now  say  that 
we — that  is,  the  Commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church — will  accept  any  satisfactory  provision  for  six  white 
Regional  Conferences."  (Article  VI.,  Section  1,  of  the  Savan- 
nah Folder.)  That  accepts  the  action  which  received  a  majority 
vote  of  the  Southern  Commissioners  at  St.  Louis,  but  failed  to 
receive  a  majority  vote  of  the  Northern  Commissioners  at  St. 
Louis.  Note  the  following  carefully :  "Or  if  this  does  not  seem 
to  you  the  best  solution,  or  if  for  any  reason  you  desire  it,  we 
will  join  with  you  in  the  appointment  of  a  Committee  of  Con- 
ference to  deal  with  you  in  this  matter."    Let  me  read  again 


324    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission-  on  Unification 

the  last  two  words — "This  matter."  What  matter?  Regional 
Conferences.  I  proceed:  "We  recognize  that  the  solution  of  the 
two  major  problems  will  not  end  our  labors,  for  there  will  be 
need  of  most  careful  study  of  details  of  the  powers  of  the  several 
classes  of  Conferences,  of  the  work  in  foreign  lands,  of  the 
adjustment  of  property  rights  and  of  funds,  of  the  consolidation 
of  Boards  and  benevolences,  etc.  But  these  matters,  though  not 
simple,  are  yet  possible  of  solution  through  Committees,  and 
some  of  them  may  be  left  to  be  solved  by  the  regularly  constituted 
agencies  of  the  United  Church."  "Touching  the  negro  mem- 
bership, we  have  no  additional  word  or  proposal  to  make  at  this 
time."  There  were  two  issues.  In  this  statement  the  Northern 
Commissioners  said:  "Tell  us  what  you  want  on  the  Regional 
Conferences.  If  it  be  what  you  voted  for  at  St.  Louis,  we  now 
approve  it.  If  it  be  something  else,  tell  us  what  it  is.  Or  if, 
for  any  other  reason,  you  want  to  go  into  a  Committee  of  Con- 
ference with  us,  we  are  ready."  You  of  the  South  asked  no 
Committee  of  Conference  on  Regional  Conferences.  You  did 
ask  a  Committee  of  Conference  upon  the  negro  problem,  and 
we  went  into  conference  with  you.  The  majority  report  of  the 
committee  simply  followed  the  Chattanooga  plan,  which  said 
that  the  negro  membership  may  be  constituted  and  recognized  as 
one  of  the  Quadrennial  or  Jurisdictional  Conferences.  I  find 
in  conversation  that  the  position  of  the  Northern  Commissioners 
has  not  been  clearly  understood.  I  supposed  it  was.  Bishop 
Cannon  will  remember  that  at  the  end  of  the  committee  meet- 
ing I  asked  him  whether  his  difficulties  were  not  helped  out  by 
remembering  your  instructions.  I  think  I  have  now  made  clear 
what  I  then  referred  to.  I  supposed  the  representatives  of  the 
Church,  South,  had  this  deliverance  of  our  Commission  thor- 
oughly in  mind.  I  find  you  did  not.  The  course  of  procedure 
proposed  by  the  Northern  Commission  will  very  surely  lead  us 
to  success  if  both  Commissions  will  adopt  it.  I  cannot  use  too 
much  emphasis  when  I  say  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
has  no  consuming  affection  for  Regional  Conferences.  Never- 
theless, our  Church  assented  to  the  Regional  Conference  plan, 
and  for  the  sake  of  union ;  and  we  now  hope  anxiously  that  the 
Southern  Commissioners  will  in  turn  feel  that  the  action  of  the 
General  Conference  at  Oklahoma  City  justifies  them  in  accepting 
for  the  negro  membership  the  plan  there  approved.  If  they  do 
so,  the  only  great  obstacles  will  have  been  removed. 

E.  M.  Randall:  I  do  not  rise  to  argue  this  matter.  I  doubt  if 
very  much  change  of  opinion  will  come  as  the  result  of  argu- 
mentation at  this  time.  For  that  matter,  I  feel  that  the  unifica- 
tion of  these  Churches  must  arise  out  of  a  mutual  understand- 
ing and  a  spiritual  unity  of  which  the  agreement,  whatever  it 
may  be,  shall  be  simply  the  expression.    I  think  the  conditions 


Cleveland  Meeting 


325 


and  the  progress  we  have  made  under  these  conditions  in  this 
Joint  Commission  have  been  delightfully  full  of  promise,  so  far 
as  that  is  concerned.  Now,  as  to  the  matter  immediately  before 
us,  I  think  it  desirable  that  everything  should  be  done  that  will 
enable  us  to  consider  any  phase  that  is  up  in  the  way  that  is 
most  acceptable  to  those  concerned.  From  what  Bishop  Mouzon 
said,  I  understand  there  is  a  desire  that  the  minority  report  may 
come  before  us  in  a  modified  form,  not  as  it  is  stated  now.  Pre- 
suming that  that  may  be  true,  recognizing  that  in  a  parliamentary 
way  it  is  now  in  possession  of  this  house  and  can  regularly  be 
modified  only  by  the  action  of  this  body,  while  at  the  same  time 
there  is  a  portion  of  this  body  that  for  obvious  reasons  is  re- 
luctant to  vote  upon  any  modification  of  it,  and  feel  it  would  be 
morally  wrong  that  we  should  do  so,  I  suggest,  Mr.  Chairman, 
that  unanimous  consent  be  given  for  those  who  signed  that 
minority  report  to  make  any  modification  they  desire  in  the  re- 
port, that  it  may  come  before  us  in  just  that  form  that  is  most 
acceptable  to  them.  That  will  solve  the  parliamentary  difficulty. 

Bishop  Cannon:  That  is  just  what  cannot  be  done.  That  re- 
port was  presented  in  the  same  form  that  Dr.  Selecman  now 
proposes  it  shall  be  as  amended.  But  two  of  the  four  signers 
said  that  that  was  not  their  understanding.  So  the  words  were 
re-inserted.  It  is  not  possible,  since  we  are  two  and  two  on  that- 
We  prefer  the  paper  shall  stand  as  it  is.  Some  of  us  do  not 
believe  that  striking  out  the  word  "missionary"  changes  at  all 
the  meaning  of  the  paper,  because  it  indicates  clearly  that  all 
these  additional  Regional  Conferences  are  of  a  different  stand- 
ing and  are  missionary,  whether  you  use  the  word  or  not.  There- 
fore, some  of  us  do  not  see  any  reason  for  stressing  that  word. 
But  the  four  members  cannot  agree  to  strike  it  out ;  and  it  would 
have  to  be  stricken  out,  if  at  all,  by  the  body. 

E.  M.  Randall:  If  difficulties  exist  among  those  who  have 
signed  the  report,  that  removes  from  any  portion  of  this  body 
any  embarrassment  that  might  arise  any  time  it  is  presented. 

Bishop  Leete:  It  seems  to  me  it  increases  the  difficulty  of 
some  of  us  very  greatly  to  vote  on  this  matter,  because  it  indi- 
cates that  really  there  are  three  reports  before  us,  one  inchoate 
and  unformed,  one  made  by  a  minority  of  four,  a"^ 
majority  report  signed  by  six  men.  Personally  I  should  much 
deplore  any  action  taken  here  that  would  seem  to  deny  to  the 
minority  who  have  not  stated  their  views  in  any  formal  way  the 
opportunity  to  express  their  views  and  to  stand  for  the  things 
which  they  believe  to  be  just  and  right.  There  are  some  things 
which  are  more  priceless  than  the  results  achieved  by  a  vote  in 
a  body  of  this  kind.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Dr.  Thomas  has  made 
us  a  very  frank  and  illuminating  statement,  with  the  general 


326    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

subject  of  which,  as  to  facts,  many  of  us  who  know  conditions 
absolutely  agree.  I  do  not  wish  to  be  misunderstood.  I  think 
the  things  he  has  suggested  as  being  the  conditions  to  be  met  are 
absolutely  correct.  It  seems  that  there  are  three  possible  reac- 
tions of  mind  with  reference  to  these  facts  and  conditions.  I 
am  not  discussing  the  question  at  all.  If  there  were  opportunity 
at  some  time,  I  would  like  to  say  something  on  the  whole  mat- 
ter. I  now  say  simply  that  I  do  not  believe  that  those  who  may 
possibly  adhere  to  the  major  division  of  this  body  would  like  to 
take  any  action  which  would  seem  to  put  the  minority  (and  it 
may  prove  to  be  either  the  larger  or  the  smaller  part  of  the 
minority)  into  a  position  where  they  would  not  be  able  to  ex- 
press themselves  or  would  be  left  in  some  attitude  which  they 
cannot  defend  when  they  go  home  from  this  body.  It  does  seem 
to  me  that  if  our  Southern  brethren  wish  to  do  so  they  ought  to 
be  permitted  to  decide  upon  the  form  of  their  minority  report, 
without  having  some  fraction  put  into  the  position  of  not  being 
able  to  express  itself  intelligibly  to  this  body. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  am  informed  that  all  the  signers  of  the  re- 
port agree  that  the  change  shall  be  made.  In  order  to  remove 
any  sort  of  difficulty,  the  report  now  will  read  with  the  word 
"missionary"  stricken  out  and  the  word  "additional"  inserted. 
And  as  to  the  other  matter,  it  is  only  fair  to  the  four  signers  to 
say  that  we  had  no  zeal  with  reference  to  the  term  "Regional 
Conference  for  Colored  People."  It  seemed  to  us  to  be  more 
an  incidental  matter  in  this,  that  it  was  for  the  body  to  deter- 
mine what  should  be  the  boundary  of  it.  If  Africa  was  not 
placed  in  that  jurisdiction,  where  should  it  be  placed?  We  have 
no  hesitation  in  accepting  any  convenient  or  appropriate  change 
of  that  sort.  It  is  not  at  all  a  matter  with  us  of  principle  on 
that  point,  but  a  matter  of  making  an  arrangement  which  we 
have  no  objection  to  having  modified.  It  seems  to  me  that  if 
you  say  "in  America"  the  report  is  not  complete  because  it  does 
not  provide  for  Africa. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  The  Chair  is  uncertain  as 
to  Bishop  Cannon's  purpose.  We  understand  him  to  say  that 
the  signers  of  the  minority  report  are  all  willing  that  the  word 
"additional"  shall  be  introduced.  Does  it  include  the  striking 
out  of  the  word  "missionary"?    Does  any  one  object? 

Bishop  Hamilton:  Are  you  going  to  include  Africa? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  The  amendment  contem- 
plates the  removal  of  the  word  "missionary,"  striking  out  Africa. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  understand  that  Dr.  Selecman  proposed 
two  amendments. 

C.  C.  Selecman :  I  withdrew  the  second  for  the  time  being. 

Bishop  McDowell:  Then  the  question  is  now  the  question  of 
unanimous  consent  that  those  persons  who  signed  the  minority 


Cleveland  Meeting 


327 


report  may  make  the  modifications  which  Bishop  Cannon  now 
proposes.  That  carries  it  back  to  the  form  in  which  yesterday 
he  presented  it.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  give  unanimous  con- 
sent to  that.  But  it  will  be  remembered  that  yesterday  when 
Bishop  Cannon  presented  the  minority  report  with  the  word  "mis- 
sionary" out,  he  said  that  he  himself  felt  that  the  Regional  Con- 
ference thus  created  by  the  minority  report  would  in  fact  be  a 
Missionary  Conference  and  he  would  have  so  to  interpret  it 
among  his  own  people  in  speaking  of  it.  And  I  judge  that  he 
omitted  the  word  with  the  understanding  that  the  thing  remained 
in  substance. 

Bishop  Cannon:  I  just  repeated  that,  with  the  arrangement 
and  designation  of  these  five  Conferences,  I  indicated  that  they 
were  in  a  subordinate  relation  which  I  consider  to  be  missionary. 

Bishop  McDowell:  I  want  the  body  to  get  that  with  absolute 
clearness  before  it  gives  its  unanimous  consent  to  this  change. 
The  status  must  be  perfectly  understood  before  we  come  to 
vote. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  There  seems  to  be  an  open 
way  to  a  perfect  understanding.  The  only  question  is  whether 
anybody  objects  to  allowing  the  committee  having  charge  of  this 
matter  to  conform  to  the  amendments  proposed  by  Dr.  Selec- 
man. 

Bishop  Hamilton :  That  is  what  I  arose  a  moment  ago  to  state 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  so  that  you  could  see  how  it  would  affect 
our  Church.  We  have  in  Africa  only  one  Conference,  which 
is  as  much  American  as  any  in  this  country.  It  is  simply  a 
colony  of  this  country.  We  have  no  other  work  there  that  is 
not  a  mere  mission. 

Bishop  Cranston:  The  Chair  hears  no  objection  to  the  pro- 
posed rearrangement. 

C.  C.  Selecman :  I  now  renew  my  motion  that  the  minority  re- 
port be  amended  so  as  to  read  in  the  second  line  of  the  first 
paragraph,  "The  Regional  Conference  of  Colored  People  in 
America." 

J.  F.  Goucher:  I  would  like  to  say,  as  the  Bishop  has  just 
said,  we  have  a  Conference  in  Africa.  We  have  a  mission  in 
Africa.  The  aggregate  membership,  colored  membership,  in 
Africa,  is  about  thirteen  thousand.  About  two  thousand  of  them 
are  in  the  mission.  Twelve  thousand  or  less  are  in  the  Confer- 
ence; where  will  that  portion  of  the  colored  membership  find 
its  affiliations?  The  only  other  group  of  colored  people  of  any 
considerable  size  is  in  Brazil.  It  would  not  do  to  associate 
Africa  with  South  America.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  is  a  nor- 
mal adjustment — with  a  little  difficulty,  possibly,  but  that  at  a 
minimum;  and  that  none  other  can  be  made  that  will  be  at  all 
satisfactory.   Therefore,  I  think  it  ought  to  stand. 


328    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

Bishop  Mouzon :  This  word  of  explanation.  The  members  of 
the  Commission  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
and  the  brethren  who  formulated  this  minority  report,  were 
just  endeavoring  to  perfect  it  so  as  to  meet  objections  which  had 
been  brought  against  it,  as  we  understood,  by  brethren  from  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  We  understood  that  our  colored 
brethren  object  to  having  the  work  in  Africa  associated  with 
them.  We  understood  that  brethren  from  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  had  also  objected  to  it.  We  were  simply  trying 
to  meet  their  objection.   That  is  all. 

J.  F.  Goucher:  The  objection  has  a  very  slender  basis. 

Bishop  Cranston :  It  strikes  me  it  could  easily  be  amended  by 
the  addition  of  a  word  after  the  words  "colored  membership  in 
America" — namely,  the  words  "in  which  the  Liberia  Conference 
shall  have  the  right  of  representation. " 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  have  this  feeling  with  reference  to  the 
discussion  of  the  main  subject.  I  am  sensitive  about  it  because 
it  applies  to  me.  Bishop  Cannon  spoke  yesterday  in  presentation 
of  his  minority  report,  at  the  request  of  this  body.  Now,  as  the 
debate  develops  before  the  vote  is  taken  on  the  minority  report, 
Bishop  Cannon  ought  to  have  exactly  the  same  freedom  that  he 
would  have  if  he  had  not  spoken  yesterday,  which  he  did  upon 
request. 

Bishop  Cranston :  That  is  well  taken.  They  were  formally 
requested  to  do  the  Commission  a  service.  Now  they  are  re- 
quested to  do  themselves  a  service. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  am  going  to  speak  specifically  to  this  amend- 
ment. I  do  not  think  that  the  addition  of  the  word  "Liberia"  will 
settle  the  question  finally,  because  it  leaves  out  of  the  question 
the  mission  of  your  Church  and  that  of  our  Church  in  Africa. 
I  do  not  think,  however,  it  is  a  matter  of  sufficient  moment  for 
us  to  delay  at  this  point.  It  is  something  that  we  all  want  to 
adjust  for  the  best  interests  of  the  kingdom.  It  seems  to  me  that 
Africa  can  be  joined  to  South  America  with  less  difficulty.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  the  Latin  Americans  do  intermarry  more  fre- 
quently in  Brazil  and  in  Cuba  with  the  negroes  than  is  the  case 
in  this  country.  And  when  it  came  to  a  practical  arrangement 
it  might  be  wise  to  join  Africa  to  South  America  or  Europe.  It 
does  not  seem  to  me  a  matter  of  such  vital  importance  that  we 
cannot  leave  the  committee  to  consider  it  later  on. 

The  Chair  called  on  Dr.  Selecman  to  state  the  amendment 
again. 

C.  C.  Selecman:  My  motion  is  that  the  report  of  the  minority 
be  amended  by  the  addition  of  the  words  "in  America,"  so  that 
line  2,  paragraph  1,  shall  read:  "(1)  A  Regional  Conference  of 
Colored  People  in  America." 

This  motion  was  put,  and  it  prevailed. 


Cleveland  Meeting 


329 


The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Now,  you  have  before  you 
the  minority  report  as  amended.  The  subject  is  still  open  for 
discussion. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  had  anticipated  that  some  one  else  would 
raise  this  question :  It  is  no  secret,  I  suppose,  that  the  Com- 
mission of  our  Church  did  discuss  it  last  night  in  our  meeting. 
I  had  the  idea  that  somebody  was  going  to  raise  the  question  this 
morning,  because  in  our  discussion  it  seemed  to  be  a  vital  mat- 
ter— namely,  that  is,  an  inquiry  as  to  how  this  majority  report 
will  affect  the  status  of  the  negro  in  the  General  Conference, 
or  rather,  what  will  be  the  relation  of  the  negro  Regional  Con- 
ference in  the  General  Conference?  We  had  that  matter  up  and 
talked  about  it.  It  seemed  to  us  there  that  it  was  a  matter  of 
such  prime  importance  that  we  should  understand  just  what  it 
meant.  Are  there  to  be  seven  Regional  Conferences  which  will 
come  under  the  General  Conference,  instead  of  the  six?  If  the 
idea  of  the  majority  is  that  in  taking  the  action  they  proposed 
we  are  to  confer  upon  the  negroes  exactly  the  same  rights  as  we 
give  to  the  white  membership,  if  their  relation  as  delegates  to 
the  General  Conference  is  to  be  exactly  the  same  as  that  of  dele- 
gates from  the  white  Regional  Conferences,  what  effect  will  that 
have  upon  the  matter  when  it  comes  to  voting  by  Regional  Con- 
ferences? Now,  we  were  not  clear  about  that  matter — we  did 
not  know  whether  the  brethren  who  presented  this  report  had 
thought  it  through  or  not;  whether  they  had  determined,  them- 
selves, what  position  the  delegates  from  these  Regional  Confer- 
ences would  hold  in  the  General  Conference.  But  for  myself,  I 
say  frankly  that  it  would  make  all  the  difference  between  going 
as  far  as  I  said  I  might  go,  yesterday,  and  being  unable  to  go 
one  step  further,  under  any  circumstances,  than  the  minority  re- 
port. I  think  there  must  be  a  clear  definition  on  that  point. 
Certainly  it  is  necessary  for  me.  I  understood  it  was  necessary 
to  most  of  our  brethren. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  am  not  authorized  at  all  to  make  a  cate- 
gorical answer  to  Bishop  Cannon's  inquiry,  which  I  understand 
he  makes  in  behalf  of — 

Bishop  Cannon :  No,  I  make  it  personally  as  an  individual. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  understood  you  to  say  that  you  had 
agreed  to  ask  this  question. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  understood  that  it  would  be  asked. 

Bishop  McDowell:  Of  course,  that  is  absolutely  proper.  You 
will  all  remember  that  when  Judge  Reeves  once  stated  that  you 
had  had  a  conference  on  a  certain  subject  and  had  reached  a 
kind  of  agreement,  I  arose  and  assured  the  Judge  that  you  had 
nothing  in  the  world  on  us,  because  we  had  done  the  same  thing ! 
Mr.  Chairman,  upon  the  subject  concerning  which  Bishop  Can- 
non now  asks,  we  have  not  had  a  formal  agreement.    But  it  is 


33°    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

my  understanding  that  the  negro  Regional  Conference  in  the 
General  Conference  stands  on  the  same  basis  as  other  Regional 
Conferences.  If  the  vote  is  required  by  Regional  Conferences, 
surely  the  Regional  Conference  of  negroes  should  vote  as  a 
Regional  Conference.  Now,  if  there  is  an  injustice  or  an  impro- 
priety in  allowing  a  Regional  Conference  with  possibly  thirty- 
two  delegates  to  have  the  same  voting  strength  as  a  Regional 
Conference  with  three  times  as  many,  I  think  I  am  warranted 
in  saying  that  we  will  join  you  in  reconsidering,  reopening  the 
question  as  to  the  method  of  voting  in  the  General  Conference, 
so  far  as  that  method  pertains  to  the  Regional  Conference  vote. 
But  our  thought,  in  this  particular  report  which  is  before  you  in 
behalf  of  the  majority  of  the  Committee  on  Conference,  is  now 
simply  to  create,  constitute,  and  recognize  a  Regional  Conference 
composed  of  our  negro  membership,  which  Regional  Conference 
shall  have  proportionate  representation  in  the  General  Confer- 
ence and  the  identical  standing  in  the  General  Conference  that 
other  Regional  Conferences  have.  By  "identical"  I  mean  that 
it  is  not  distinguished  against  as  subordinate.  I  am  not  author- 
ized to  say — if  any  one  thinks  I  ought  to  say  more,  I  will.  Have 
I  said  what  you  desired  to  have  me  say?  If  there  is  anything 
more  I  ought  to  say,  I  would  be  glad  to  say  it. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  would  like  to  inquire  if  that,  as  you  under- 
stand it,  is  the  judgment  of  your  Commission. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  am  not  authorized  in  this  particular  mat- 
ter to  speak  for  our  Commission,  because  this  matter  has  not 
been  formally  before  our  Commission;  and  yet  I  am  frank  to  say 
that  it  represents  our  Commission  in  this  manner  and  to  this  ex- 
tent, that  we  are  proposing  a  Regional  Conference  of  negroes 
which  shall  stand  in  the  General  Conference  on  the  basis  of  pro- 
portionate membership  and  without  any  inferior  standing.  That 
is  to  say,  not  to  be  regarded  as  "missionary,"  not  regarded  as 
subordinate,  not  regarded  as  other  than  a  Regional  Conference 
possessing  the  powers  of  the  Regional  Conferences,  with  possibly 
only  such  limitations  as  belong  to  the  fact  that  it  has  not  so  large 
numbers. 

J.  F.  Goucher:  That  would  imply  that  in  its  powers  as  a 
Regional  Conference  it  should  have  the  proportionate  influence 
that  the  very  strong  Regional  Conferences  have — proportionate, 
not  identical.  If  there  are  only  thirty-two  members,  it  should 
not  have  the  same  power  as  the  stronger  Regional  Conferences. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  expressed  willingness  to  examine  that 
question  with  you.  I  do  not  wish  to  express  for  the  Commission 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  an  opinion  as  to  what  ought 
to  be  done  concerning  that  matter.  I  only  expressed  the  opinion 
that  if  questions  of  the  voting  by  Regional  Conferences  are  now 
raised  by  the  creation  of  the  Regional  Conference  of  negroes, 


Cleveland  Meeting 


33* 


we  will  with  you  reexamine  the  manner  of  voting  by  Regional 
Conferences. 

D.  G.  Downey :  I  wonder  if  I  might  not  ask  Bishop  McDowell 
if  he  would  not  be  justified  in  saying  that  the  matter  of  protec- 
tion of  minorities,  which  was  in  our  minds  when  we  talked  about 
these  Regional  Conferences — if  it  would  not  be  the  mind  of  our 
Commission  that  that  matter  of  protection  of  minorities  sliould 
be  properly  safeguarded  if  we  have  this  new  arrangement  of 
Regional  Conferences. 

Bishop  McDowell :  It  was  understood  that  the  adoption  of 
this  matter  did  not  involve  the  violation  in  the  slightest  degree 
of  any  of  those  agreements  which  we  had  tentatively  reached  in 
relation  to  other  matters.  I  would,  therefore,  go  as  far  as  Dr. 
Downey  suggests. 

C.  M.  Bishop:  I  would  ask  Bishop  McDowell  if  he  means  to 
disregard  the  provision  once  made  that  Regional  Conferences 
should  consist  of  at  least  one  hundred  thousand  members.  And 
I  would  inquire  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  statement  made  by 
Bishop  McDowell  yesterday  morning  as  to  the  position  of  the 
Commission  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  concerning  Re- 
gional Conferences.  Mr.  Chairman  and  Bishop  McDowell,  it 
seemed  to  some  of  us  that  your  statement  as  representing  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  left  the  question  of  Regional  Con- 
ferences where  it  was  in  the  record — their  character  and  rights 
and  the  number  required  to  compose  them  being,  so  far  as  your 
statement  was  concerned,  what  they  were  when  we  last  discussed 
the  matter.  Now,  this  changes  that  entire  situation.  That  is 
part  of  what  we  wish  to  have  cleared  up. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  think  you  have  asked  me  two  questions 
in  one.  The  first  question  is  about  the  provision  as  to  the  rep- 
resentation of  a  Regional  Conference  in  the  General  Conference 
if  it  had  less  than  one  hundred  thousand  members.  Clearly,  the 
adoption  of  the  majority  report  would  require  a  modification  of 
that  tentative  agreement.  Will  you  state  again  your  second  ques- 
tion? 

C.  M.  Bishop :  It  was  with  reference  to  the  meaning  to  be  at- 
tached to  that  statement  of  yesterday  morning  concerning  what 
you  understood  to  be  the  concession  on  the  part  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  as  to  Regional  Conferences. 

Bishop  McDowell :  The  concession  was  a  concession  on  the 
basis  of  a  single  item — namely,  as  to  number,  and  with  a  distinct 
limitation  as  to  powers,  with  distinct  reservations  openly  made. 
I  will  read  what  I  said :  "We  will  accept,  if  satisfactory  to  you, 
the  provision  for  six  white  Regional  Conferences.  If  this  does 
not  seem  to  you  the  best  solution,  we  will  join  you  in  the  pro- 
vision for  a  Committee  of  Conference."  Later  I  read:  "There 
will  be  needed  most  careful  study  of  details  of  the  powers  of  the 


332    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

several  classes  of  Conferences  and  of  the  work  in  foreign  lands 
and  of  the  adjustments  of  property  rights,"  etc.  We  were  quite 
conscious  yesterday  in  making  this  agreement  as  to  six  white 
Regional  Conferences  and  in  proposing  the  creation  of  a  Regional 
Conference  for  negroes,  that  it  would  invite  reopening  of  those 
questions  with  reference  to  powers,  methods  of  voting,  and  vari- 
ous and  sundry  other  matters.  We  have  no  desire  to  create  a 
misunderstood  condition  by  the  adoption  of  the  majority  report. 
We  have  no  desire  at  all  to  take  any  advantage  that  would  be 
due  to  the  adoption  of  that  report.  Therefore  I  say  that  if  the 
majority  report  is  adopted  and  if  the  six  white  Regional  Con- 
ferences are  accepted,  as  we  have  agreed  they  shall  be,  we  would 
reexamine  with  you  all  the  implications,  all  the  powers,  all  the 
provisions  that  we  have  heretofore  constituted ;  we  would  re- 
examine with  you  all  the  implications  of  this  action.  I  am  sim- 
ply trying  to  say  to  Dr.  Bishop  that  if  there  is  any  fear  on  the 
part  of  the  brethren  from  the  South  that  by  putting  the  majority 
report  into  our  record  to-day  we  therefore,  or  by  that  process, 
have  created  (if  it  were  a  body  in  which  such  things  would  be 
done)  a  body  which  would  be  getting  a  parliamentary  advantage 
by  subterfuge,  we  want  the  full  implications  of  this  to  be  the 
subject  of  the  fullest  conference.  We  mean  that  all  equities 
shall  be  fully  preserved.  What  Dr.  Downey  has  said  in  refer- 
ence to  the  protection  of  the  rights  of  minorities,  for  that  we  still 
would  stand — the  protection  of  the  rights  of  a  minority  by  the 
method  of  Regional  Conference  voting,  whatever  method  is 
necessary  under  the  new  order. 

W.  D.  Bradfield :  This  is  my  first  appearance  as  a  member  of 
the  Commission  from  the  South.  I  believe  there  is  no  man  here 
who  has  kept  better  informed,  according  to  his  ability,  of  the 
proceedings  as  published  from  time  to  time  of  this  Commission, 
than  I.  I  took  a  very  bold  stand  yesterday  when  I  seconded 
Bishop  McDowell's  motion  that  the  majority  report  should  be 
adopted.  I  assumed,  brethren,  when  I  took  that  stand,  that  the 
tentative  agreements  as  to  protection  of  minorities,  as  to  classi- 
fication of  Conferences,  would  stand.  I  assumed  that.  I  should 
not  have  taken  that  position  if  there  had  arisen  any  shadow  of 
doubt  in  my  mind.  I  tell  you  that  my  brethren  who  differ  from 
me  are  not  speaking  of  imaginary  phantasms  when  they  tell  you 
about  difficulties  in  the  South.  I  see  those  difficulties.  But  with 
a  Regional  Conference  which  is  a  Regional  Conference  in  fact  as 
well  as  in  name,  with  the  provision  for  the  protection  of  minori- 
ties by  the  voting  by  Regional  Conferences,  as  you  had  tenta- 
tively agreed  upon  them,  I  believed  and  I  now  believe  that  the 
majority  report,  with  friendly  explanations  of  the  plan,  can  pre- 
vail in  the  South.  I  am  willing  to  stand  upon  that  majority  re- 
port with  the  tentative  agreements  in  substance  carried  out. 


Cleveland  Meeting 


333 


But  I  would  not  for  my  hand  vote  for  the  majority  report  if 
there  is  any  shadow  of  doubt  about  the  protection  of  minorities, 
which  is  so  necessary,  being  given. 

Bishop  McDowell:  I  just  asked  Bishop  Denny  if  my  statement 
seemed  to  him  to  cover  the  whole  matter.  He  raises  a  question 
that  I  am  glad  to  answer.  It  touches  two  matters.  One  is  the 
matter  that  was  thought  to  be  secured  by  voting  by  Regional 
Conferences,  which  was  for  the  protection  of  a  minority.  I 
answer  concerning  that,  that  I  am  very  sure  the  spirit  that  pro- 
vided the  plan  now  tentatively  agreed  to  will  provide  another 
plan  equally  efficient  at  that  point  to  cover  the  case  of  seven 
Regional  Conferences  in  case  there  should  be  seven.  My  second 
proposition,  in  answer  to  Bishop  Denny's  question,  privately  put, 
relates  to  voting  upon  constitutional  matters  not  by  Regions  but 
just  by  numbers.  Concerning  that,  I  feel  obliged  to  say  that  in 
a  General  Conference  of  six  hundred  and  fifty  men,  with  possi- 
bly thirty-two  negro  men,  or  a  General  Conference  of  eight  hun- 
dred and  fifty,  with  possibly  forty-two  negro  men,  the  thirty-two 
or  the  forty-two  negro  men  would  vote  as  other  delegates,  as 
individuals. 

H.  H.  White:  In  a  former  meeting,  something  went  into  the 
record  from  the  Southern  delegates  relative  to  the  protection  or 
financial  assistance  that  would  be  accorded  to  the  Colored  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church.  I  do  not  recall  whether  it  became 
the  action  of  the  Joint  Commission  or  not.  I  do  not  know 
whether  this  is  the  proper  place  to  raise  the  question  or  not. 
But  I  presume,  from  the  general  tenor  of  your  remarks,  that 
probably  all  matters  would  be  dealt  with  in  the  most  liberal  way 
for  consideration  and  adjustment,  provided  either  one  of  these 
reports  is  adopted.  I  desire  also  to  know  whether  it  is  under- 
stood that  the  position  which  the  Southern  delegation  took  in 
reference  to  financial  assistance  of  the  Colored  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  would  be  adhered  to. 

Bishop  McDowell :  Secretary  Harris  reported  this  action :  That 
we  approve  the  report  as  a  basis  for  determining  the  status  of 
the  negro  in  the  reorganized  Church.  We  have  not  had  that  sub- 
ject up  anew  at  this  time.  But  my  recollection  is  that  we  ap- 
proved your  deliverance  upon  that  subject,  Judge  White,  and 
therefore  it  stands  unmodified.  And  in  no  discussion  that  we 
have  had  since  last  Friday  has  that  question  been  before  us.  I 
assume,  therefore,  that  it  stands. 

Edgar  Blake :  Just  a  word,  a  word  that  I  want  to  speak  at  this 
time,  more  in  the  nature  of  the  question  of  personal  privilege 
than  anything  else,  I  think.  Therefore  it  may  be  in  order.  I 
think  I  have  already  spoken  upon  the  main  question.  With  the 
statement  made  by  Bishop  McDowell  concerning  his  interpreta- 
tion of  the  attitude  of  our  Commissioners — namely,  that  ade- 


334    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

quate  provision  should  be  made  for  the  protection  of  the  rights 
of  minorities,  either  in  the  form  in  which  we  have  proposed,  or 
in  some  other  that  shall  be  equally  effective — with  that,  speaking 
as  a  member  of  our  Commission,  I  am  quite  in  harmony.  I  am 
also  in  harmony  with  Bishop  McDowell's  statement  that  it  was 
the  understanding,  at  least  of  some  of  our  own  Commission,  that 
any  statement  or  agreement  entered  into  between  us  did  not 
affect  those  agreements  on  related  matters  already  tentatively 
agreed  to  between  the  two  Commissions.  That  was  my  under- 
standing. With  reference  to  the  standing  of  the  Colored  Re- 
gional Conference,  in  its  relation  to  the  other  Regional  Confer- 
ences, it  is  quite  clear  that  it  cannot  have  exactly  the  same  stand- 
ing, so  far  as  it  relates  to  certain  privileges  and  powers,  as  that 
of  other  Conferences.  And  that  is  not  due  to  the  matter  of 
color.  That  is  due  to  the  matter  of  deficiency  in  numbers.  That 
is  to  say,  if  we  will  keep  it  clearly  in  mind,  that  that  relation  for 
various  groups  falls  into  two  general  classes.  We  have,  for  in- 
stance, one  group  of  Regional  Conferences  the  membership  of 
which  will  run  from  seven  hundred  and  twenty  thousand  to 
over  a  million.  We  have  another  group  of  Regional  Conferences 
the  membership  of  which  will  run  from  thirty  thousand  to  three 
hundred  thousand.  It  is  perfectly  clear  that  the  latter  group 
cannot  be  accorded  the  same  privileges  and  powers  as  the  larger 
group,  except  in  kinds,  not  in  degree.  For  instance,  we  have 
provided  that  the  delegates  from  the  Annual  Conferences  to  the 
General  Conference,  from  these  larger  jurisdictions,  shall  con- 
stitute the  Regional  Conference  of  those  jurisdictions.  And  we 
have  provided  that  they  shall  have  the  power,  among  other  things, 
to  elect  bishops  for  their  jurisdiction,  as  well  as  certain  other 
privileges.  And  in  order  that  that  power  may  be  exercised  by 
a  number  of  delegates  sufficiently  large  to  be  truly  representa- 
tive of  the  jurisdiction,  we  have  provided  that  the  number  of 
delegates  from  those  jurisdictions  shall  be  not  less  than  one  hun- 
dred. And  as  a  matter  of  fact  these  jurisdictions  as  they  are 
now  designated  in  their  boundaries  (I  am  referring  to  the  six 
white)  will  produce,  on  the  basis  of  two  delegates  for  each  four- 
teen thousand  members,  a  representation  in  the  General  Confer- 
ence for  each  jurisdiction  in  excess  of  one  hundred.  But  when 
we  come  to  our  foreign  and  to  our  colored  jurisdictions  the  case 
is  not  at  all  the  same.  That  is  to  say,  speaking  with  reference 
to  this  colored  jurisdiction,  the  number  of  delegates  that  will 
be  returned  to  the  General  Conference  from  our  colored  juris- 
diction on  the  basis  of  two  delegates  for  each  fourteen  thousand 
members  will  be  presumably  thirty-two  or  fo^y-two.  It  is  very 
clear  that  it  would  not  appear  to  be  wise  to  give  those  thirty-two 
or  forty-two  colored  delegates  the  power  to  elect  bishops  for 
that  colored  jurisdiction.    Neither  would  it  appear  to  be  wise 


Cleveland  Meeting 


335 


to  give  to  that  small  number  of  delegates  the  power  either  of 
legislative  or  administrative  control  of  the  affairs  of  the  juris- 
diction. I  think  there  can  be  do  difference  of  opinion  at  that 
point  in  this  group. 

A  Voice :  There  is  a  very  great  difference. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  was  not  aware  of  it.  There  is  a  difference. 
I  will  not  attempt  to  argue  it.  I  will  simply  state  that  in  my  judg- 
ment you  cannot  get  our  colored  constituency  to  consent  for  a 
single  minute,  gentlemen,  that  any  thirty-two  or  forty-two  dele- 
gates whom  their  Regional  Conference  might  send  to  the  General 
Conference  should  elect  their  bishops  for  them  and  control  their 
affairs. 

D.  G.  Downey :  There  are  about  three  hundred  and  fifty  thou- 
sand colored  members  in  that  Regional  Conference,  with  a  rep- 
resentation of  about  forty-two.  Do  I  understand  you  to  say  that 
there  are  about  six  hundred  thousand  or  seven  hundred  thou- 
sand membership  in  each  of  the  other  Regional  Conferences? 

Edgar  Blake:  My  statement  was  that  the  membership  of  our 
colored  jurisdiction,  if  you  omit  Liberia,  in  1916  was  about 
three  hundred  and  eight  thousand  in  full  connection.  And  the 
membership  in  the  six  white  Regional  Conferences  ranges  from 
seven  hundred  and  twenty  thousand  in  the  smallest  jurisdiction 
to  something  over  a  million  members  in  the  largest  jurisdiction. 

D.  G.  Downey:  Would  it  not  be  as  reasonable  to  say  that 
forty-two  men  representing  three  hundred  and  eight  thousand 
should  perform  certain  duties  for  those  three  hundred  and  eight 
thousand  as  that  one  hundred  men  representing  seven  hundred 
thousand  should  perform  like  duties  for  the  seven  hundred  thou- 
sand? 

Edgar  Blake:  It  seems  to  me  that  that  is  not  quite  the  ques- 
tion. The  question  is  as  to  whether  the  number  of  men  that  are 
to  discharge  a  certain  duty  and  exercise  certain  powers  is  suf- 
ficient for  those  duties  and  powers.  A  number  has  not  only  to 
be  truly  representative  of  the  constituency  but  also  to  embrace 
within  the  number  sufficient  wisdom  and  strength  to  do  the 
things  submitted  to  them. 

C.  B.  Spencer:  In  speaking  of  forty  delegates  do  you  mean 
twenty  ministers  and  twenty  laymen? 

Edgar  Blake :  Yes,  sir,  presumably.  I  do  not  believe  that  our 
colored  constituency,  and  I  do  not  believe  that  the  majority  of 
this  Joint  Commission  would  for  one  moment  want  to  make  any 
arrangement  which  would  give  the  colored  jurisdiction  one  hun- 
dred delegates  in  the  General  Conference.  If  we  should  do  that, 
it  would  mean  giving  to  this  jurisdiction  two  and  one-half  times 
its  proportional  membership.  I  do  not  believe  that  you  mean 
to  give  or  that  it  would  be  desirable  to  give  such  a  jurisdiction 
or  any  jurisdiction  such  disproportionate  representation  in  the 


336    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

chief  lawmaking  body.  It  seems  to  me,  upon  this,  that  we  have 
got  to  devise  a  different  form  of  Regional  Conference  for  what 
I  may  call  the  smaller  jurisdictions  from  that  under  considera- 
tion. It  simply  throws  us  back  upon  the  proposition  of  provid- 
ing a  Regional  Conference  for  them  of  such  character  as  will 
be  truly  representative  and  truly  efficient  and  sufficient  in  num- 
bers to  do  the  work  committed  to  them.  Speaking  now  of  these 
smaller  Conferences,  we  have  reached  a  tentative  agreement  that 
the  smaller  groups  numerically  should  be  composed  as  follows : 
One  ministerial  and  one  lay  delegate  elected  by  each  Annual 
Conference  or  Mission  Conference  for  each  two  thousand  mem- 
bers or  major  fraction  thereof.  In  other  words,  instead  of  hav- 
ing the  delegates  elected  to  the  General  Conference  by  the  An- 
nual Conferences  of  one  of  these  smaller  jurisdictions  consti- 
tute the  Regional  Conference  of  that  jurisdiction,  we  have  pro- 
vided that  they  shall  have  a  Regional  Conference  composed  of  a 
certain  number  of  delegates,  one  ministerial  and  one  lay  for  each 
two  thousand  members  or  fraction  of  two-thirds  thereof,  which 
delegates  shall  constitute  their  Regional  Conference;  and  which, 
as  I  now  recall  it,  for  the  colored  Regional  Conference  would 
mean  for  them  a  Regional  Conference  of  three  hundred  and 
eight  members.  I  do  not  see  how  we  can  possibly  do  otherwise 
than  something  like  that.  My  understanding  is  that  this  report 
brought  in  here  does  not  affect  that  at  this  time,  only  as  it  shall 
seem  necessary  to  reopen  that  matter  to  find  something  more 
satisfactory  than  what  we  have  agreed  on  tentatively. 

D.  G.  Downey:  Is  it  not  the  fact  that  that  provision  for  that 
type  of  Regional  Conference  was  made  with  reference  to  a 
Regional  Conference  that  did  not  have  full  rights  in  the  General 
Conference,  and  that  you  are  applying  now  a  tentative  provision 
proposed  for  a  different  type  of  Regional  Conference  from  that 
proposed  in  the  majority  report? 

Edgar  Blake :  The  powers  of  this  Regional  Conference,  the 
legislative  powers,  are  precisely  the  same  as  any  one  of  the 
white  Regional  Conferences  has.  In  other  words,  the  powers 
agreed  upon  for  these  smaller  Regional  Conferences — that  is, 
their  legislative  powers — are  defined  in  precisely  the  same  words, 
as  I  recall,  as  are  the  powers  of  larger  Regional  Conferences 
as  those  have  been  agreed  upon.  They  are  identical.  The  point 
at  which  that  difference  comes,  as  I  see  it,  is  as  to  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  Regional  Conference,  as  to  its  representation  in  the 
General  Conference,  and  as  touching  its  powers  with  reference 
to  the  election  of  its  bishops.  That  is  to  say,  we  have  agreed 
that  these  smaller  Regional  Conferences,  those  having  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  thousand  members  or  more,  shall  have  the  right 
to  elect  the  bishops  for  their  own  jurisdictions,  which  bishops 
shall  be  limited  to  the  jurisdiction  by  which  they  are  elected. 


Cleveland  Meeting 


337 


That  is  my  understanding.  And  I  understand  that  that  is  not 
affected.  Again  we  have  likewise  agreed  that  in  these  smaller 
jurisdictions  having  less  than  150,000  members  their  bishops 
shall  be  elected  for  them  by  the  General  Conference. 

R.  E.  Blackwell :  It  seems  to  me  that  some  of  these  things 
ought  to  be  cleared  up  in  committee.  The  majority  report  ought 
to  set  out  these  things  so  that  we  shall  know  what  it  means.  A 
great  deal  of  our  talk  was  based  on  our  separate  actions.  It 
seems  that  they  did  not  understand  it  any  more  than  we  did. 
These  things  ought  to  be  straightened  out.  I  think  it  ought  to 
be  sent  back  to  the  committee  and  the  whole  thing  worked  out 
in  a  committee  of  ten,  so  that  they  may  state  what  they  mean. 

C.  M.  Bishop :  I  second  that  suggestion  of  Dr.  Blackwell's 
and  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  under  the  present  situation  the 
proposal  of  the  majority  report  is  not  at  all  so  simple  a  matter 
as  it  appears  on  the  face  of  it.  It  quite  sounded  to  me  yesterday 
as  if  the  matter  of  negro  representation  in  the  General  Confer- 
ence had  been  separated  from  the  other  questions,  and  that  we 
were  simply  to  discuss  that.  But  here  Dr.  Downey  in  his  ques- 
tions to  Dr.  Blake  a  moment  ago  says :  "Have  we  not  provided 
now  for  another  view  of  the  Regional  Conference  of  the  colored 
membership  ?"  I  think  in  the  light  of  the  discussion  that  that  is 
what  is  contemplated.  But  it  is  not  so  stated  in  the  paper.  We 
do  not  know  where  we  are.  I  do  begin  to  apprehend  the  very 
great  difference  between  the  two  papers  which  Dr.  Downey  and 
others  insisted  upon  yesterday.  It  looked  to  some  of  us  as  if 
there  were  not  a  very  large  difference,  but  now  it  gapes  wide. 
I  confirm  Dr.  Downey's  view  as  to  the  vast  difference  between 
the  two.  But  it  is  not  indicated  altogether  on  the  surface  of  the 
papers  themselves.  I  cannot  understand  how  the  report  of  the 
majority  of  the  Conference  Committee  yesterday  with  reference 
to  proportional  negro  voting  could  be  understood  by  those  not 
on  the  inside  as  referring  to  anything  more  than  when  it  was 
last  discussed  at  Savannah  and  St.  Louis.  Certainly  we  did  not 
understand  that  it  meant  the  lifting  a  negro  jurisdiction  into  the 
first  class.  We  did  not  so  understand  it  then,  and  I  do  not  see 
how  we  could  understand  it  now  without  sufficient  explanation. 
So  we  have  to  ask  further  light  upon  the  report  of  the  majority 
of  our  committee. 

D.  G.  Downey:  I  think  it  is  well  that  this  matter  should  have 
come  out  in  just  this  way.  I  had  not  thought  that  there  was  any 
serious  misapprehension  on  the  part  of  anybody.  The  state- 
ment that  was  made  by  Bishop  McDowell  in  behalf  of  the  Com- 
mission of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  its  foundation 
in  the  Chattanooga  action.  And  the  sort  of  Regional  Confer- 
ence that  we  are  asking  for  in  the  maj6rity  report  is  the  sort  of 
Regional  Conference  proposed  in  the  Chattanooga  document. 

22 


338    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

C.  M.  Bishop:  Does  that  mean  that  the  definition  of  Regional 
Conference  which  we  are  now  to  operate  under  shall  be  the 
definition  which  could  alone  have  been  made  of  a  Regional  Con- 
ference at  the  time  of  the  Chattanooga  meeting?  I  am  in  ac- 
cord with  the  suggestion  that  that  would  change  the  character 
of  all  the  Regional  Conferences. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Dr.  Downey  would  mean, 
as  modified  by  the  agreed  upon  changes. 

D.  G.  Downey :  I  was  about  to  complete  my  statement  of  fact. 
It  harked  back  to  the  definition  of  Regional  Conferences  at 
Chattanooga.  In  our  discussions  of  Regional  Conferences  here- 
tofore all  tentative  agreements  contemplated  an  inferior  type  of 
Regional  Conferences  for  certain  sections  of  the  Church,  in- 
cluding the  negroes  and  the  foreign  jurisdictions.  I  understand 
— if  I  do  not  represent  my  fellow  Commissioners  I  am  perfectly 
willing  to  be  corrected — that  the  Regional  Conference  that  we 
are  asking  for  in  the  majority  report  is  a  Regional  Conference 
which — 

C.  M.  Bishop:  Let  me  ask,  does  the  majority  report  refer  to 
the  Regional  Conference  at  all? 

D.  G.  Downey:  I  think  so.  The  Quadrennial  Conference  re- 
ferred to  is  the  same  as  is  referred  to  in  the  Chattanooga  plan. 
We  took  certain  action  as  to  powers  and  privileges  of  various 
types  of  Regional  Conferences.  It  is  not  expected  that  the 
tentative  action  with  reference  to  an  inferior  type  of  Regional 
Conferences  shall  apply  in  all  particulars  to  the  Regional  Con- 
ference that  the  majority  report  asks  for.  There  was  a  further 
statement  on  the  part  of  Bishop  McDowell  that  all  questions, 
in  addition  to  the  two  major  matters,  would  have  to  be  taken 
up  together  for  discussion  and  for  certain  adjustments ;  all  the 
equities  in  the  case  with  respect  to  the  protection  of  minorities, 
with  respect  to  everything  of  that  sort,  and  I  should  think  also 
with  respect  to  the  palpable  inequity  of  one  Regional  Conference 
representing,  we  will  say,  only  three  hundred  thousand  members 
with  thirty-two  delegates  having  precisely  the  same  voting 
powers  as  a  much  larger  one.  I  think  all  that  is  open  for  discus- 
sion, and  that  we  may  come  to  an  agreement  on  that.  But  I  do 
not  think  it  represents  our  mind,  simply  to  grant  membership 
in  the  General  Conference  to  a  specified  number  and  then  give 
them  an  inferior  relation,  as  I  thought  was  indicated  by  Dr. 
Blake's  statement  concerning  our  tentative  agreement  with  ref- 
erence to  Regional  Conferences  of  a  certain  type.  I  do  not 
believe  that  that  type  of  Regional  Conference  applies  to  our 
present  plan. 

Bishop  Mouzon  :  I  move  the  reference  of  this  report  back  to 
the  committee  in  order  that  all  these  related  matters  may  be 
worked  out  and  we  may  see  this  report  in  all  its  bearings.  I 


Cleveland  Meeting 


339 


mean  the  reference  of  both  reports  back  to  the  committee,  that 
both  may  be  worked  out  and  brought  in  in  perfect  condition. 

A.  J.  Lamar :  I  want  to  ask  Dr.  Downey  a  question  for  infor- 
mation. I  am  perfectly  frank.  I  want  light.  Is  it  your  idea, 
down  in  your  heart,  that  the  white  Regional  Conferences  should 
have  legislative  power  or  should  only  be  administrative  bodies, 
with  the  legislative  power  in  the  General  Conference? 

D.  G.  Downey :  I  am  willing  that  that  should  be  open  to  agree- 
ment. I  have  never  heard  an  agreement  in  regard  to  it.  Per- 
sonally, I  would  have  it  largely  administrative  under  the  unify- 
ing General  Conference.  But  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  concede 
on  these  points.  I  would  not  stop  unification  because  we  could 
not  get  a  purely  administrative  Regional  Conference. 

Bishop  Moore :  I  made  yesterday  some  statements  that  I  found 
were  not  true.  I  have  had  a  great  deal  of  light  this  morning.  I 
had  no  idea  that  the  purpose  of  the  majority  report  was  to  tear 
up  what  we  had  done.  I  had  no  thought  that  you  meant  to  go 
back  and  undo  the  work  done  in  relation  to  Regional  Confer- 
ences and  that  other  group  of  Regional  Conferences.  After 
hearing  the  speakers  this  morning,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  Com- 
mission of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  should  come  to  some 
agreement  as  to  what  it  really  wants.  There  are  different  in- 
terpretations here.  Dr.  Blake's  and  Bishop  McDowell's  inter- 
pretations differ  widely.  It  seems  to  me  that  we  as  Commis- 
sioners of  the  Southern  Church  should  know  exactly  what  is 
in  their  minds. 

Bishop  McDowell :  Will  you  assure  us  that  there  is  absolute 
agreement  in  your  Commission? 

Bishop  Moore :  Yes,  on  some  things.  I  would  like  very  much 
that  there  might  be  some  statement  brought  out  from  the  Com- 
mission of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  as  to  what  you  clearly 
have  in  mind.  If  this  committee  is  prepared  to  do  that  sort  of 
thing,  if  these  five  representatives  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  are  prepared  to  present  the  point  of  view  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  well  and  good ;  if  not,  it  seems  to  me  that  the 
Commission  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  should  give  us 
some  statement.  I  surely  support  the  motion  that  this  go  back 
to  the  committee.  As  I  understand  it,  the  whole  question  that 
we  have  before  us  is  the  question  of  the  representation  of  the 
colored  membership  in  the  General  Conference.  But  it  has  taken 
such  a  wide  sweep  that  I  am  sure  it  should  go  back  to  the  com- 
mittee. 

Bishop  Mouzon  took  the  chair. 

Bishop  Cranston :  It  seems  to  me  that  we  are  becoming  some- 
what nervous.  Occupying  the  chair,  and  observing  as  fairly  as 
I  am  capable  of  doing  the  working  of  the  many  minds  that  have 
been  seeking  expression  here,  it  has  appeared  to  me  that  some 


34Q    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

of  you  have  reached  a  conclusion  that  is  entirely  unwarranted 
by  the  facts.  Let  us  get  down  to  the  case  just  as  it  is.  We 
started  out  by  endeavoring  to  fix  our  thoughts  upon  the  two  re- 
maining difficulties  hindering  our  progress  toward  unification — 
namely,  the  Regional  Conference  and  the  status  of  the  negro. 
It  was  thought  that  if  we  could  come  to  an  agreement  as  to  the 
status  of  the  negro  the  other  matters  would  adjust  themselves 
to  correspond  to  that  understanding.  You  appointed  a  commit- 
tee for  that  purpose.  That  committee  has  reported.  The  rela- 
tion of  this  question,  the  status  of  the  negro,  as  it  has  been  set 
forth  in  the  two  reports — one  contemplating  a  missionary  rela- 
tionship for  his  Regional  Conference,  and  the  other  contem- 
plating the  same  relation  as  the  home  white  Conferences — is  the 
question  to  be  settled  first.  It  has  been  distinctly  stated  that 
any  equities  and  understandings  that  are  affected  by  the  deter- 
mination of  this  one  question  shall  be  undisturbed,  and  that,  as 
far  as  it  affects  any  of  these  agreed  propositions,  the  proper 
recognition  of  the  fact  and  the  proper  adjudication  shall  follow. 
Now  the  matter  is  perfectly  straight  and  plain.  Bishop  Moore 
may  have  received  some  new  light  since  yesterday,  when  he 
thought  the  reports  were  just  alike;  and  that  is  wholesome,  be- 
cause they  were  not  alike,  as  we  have  found  out  since.  And  I 
also  have  found  some  new  light.  We  have  not  fallen  into  con- 
fusion in  our  procedure  in  connection  with  this  report.  We  are 
all  right !  All  we  want  to  do  is  to  go  ahead  and  do  the  rest.  But 
if  you  begin  by  reopening  all  these  questions  back  of  us,  we 
shall  be  here  indefinitely.  What  we  want,  after  we  agree  on  the 
outlying  principle,  is  a  Committee  of  Conference  that  shall  re- 
port to  a  subsequent  meeting,  a  committee  that  shall  have  the 
gift  of  appealing  to  God  and  getting  light.  Let  us  not  open  the 
whole  subject  of  Regional  Conferences.  And  we  will  never  in 
the  slightest  degree  take  any  advantage  of  any  possible  parlia- 
mentary or  equity  outcome  of  the  vote  on  the  present  proposi- 
tion to  give  the  negro  the  same  chance  as  the  white  Conference 
in  the  reorganized  General  Conference.  Bishop  McDowell  has 
stated  that.  It  is  perfectly  plain.  We  are  brethren  believing 
in  each  other.  The  thing  to  be  feared  now  is  the  fear  to  go 
straight  ahead. 

J.  F.  Goucher:  I  wish  to  say  that  I  am  not  in  sympathy  with 
the  motion  to  recommit.  It  seems  to  me  that  there  is  a  very 
definite  proposition  before  us — namely,  to  perfect  the  minority 
report.  Then  to  take  a  vote  upon  that  report  as  to  whether  it 
shall  be  substituted  or  accepted  in  preference  to  the  majority 
report.  If  it  is  not  accepted,  then  to  vote  upon  the  majority  re- 
port. Now,  there  are  a  great  many  questions  that  will  have  to 
be  settled,  and  they  are  very  intricate.  But  with  the  declared 
statement  that  it  is  the  positive  purpose  of  the  Commissioners 


Cleveland  Meeting 


341 


representing  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  that  the  equities, 
the  protection  of  minorities,  the  adjudication  along  the  lines  of 
those  discussions  we  have  had  in  the  past,  shall  not  be  disturbed 
but  shall  be  protected,  it  seems  to  me  there  is  no  reason  why  we 
cannot  proceed.  I  cannot  conceive  how  it  is  possible  for  us  to 
go  any  further  than  we  have  (I  mean,  the  representatives  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church),  for  the  reason  that  we  have 
said  that  if  the  plan  of  these  Regional  Conferences,  the  white 
Conferences,  constructed  as  they  were  tentatively  proposed  at 
St.  Louis,  is  agreeable  to  the  members  representing  the  Southern 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  we  will  give  it  our  hearty  indorse- 
ment. If,  however,  for  any  reaspn,  our  brethren  representing 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  should  prefer  to  re- 
open the  question  as  to  the  number  of  Regional  Conferences,  or 
their  limitations,  or  as  to  their  functions,  we  commit  ourselves 
here  unreservedly  to  go  into  conference  with  them  and  come  to 
a  mutual  understanding.  Now,  that  is  not  an  attempt  to  put 
anything  over  on  anybody.  I  am  humiliated  by  saying  it.  It 
is  simply  an  evidence  of  our  fundamental  desire  that  we  shall 
meet  the  propositions  that  shall  come  from  our  brethren  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  in  reference  to  the  difficul- 
ties of  the  area  which  they  represent  specifically,  while  in  the 
broader  sense  they  represent  the  whole  Church  and  the  kingdom 
of  Jesus  Christ.  Secondly,  there  are  implications  in  all  these 
motions  which  do  not  appear  at  first  on  the  surface.  Some 
points  have  been  brought  out  of  which  we  did  not  sense  the  im- 
plications completely.  Therefore  we  say  that  we  are  determined 
that  there  shall  be  no  interruption  in  the  arrangements  previous- 
ly agreed  to  for  the  protection  of  minorities,  and  in  the  arrange- 
ments which  shall  be  achieved;  that  if  a  Regional  Conference 
is  much  smaller  than  others  it  cannot  have  the  full  powers.  If 
there  is  anything  which  could  possibly  be  threatening  in  its  ap- 
pearance, we  are  quite  willing  that  it  shall  be  made  a  matter  for 
a  Conference  Committee,  and  have  adjudication.  Therefore  it 
would  seem  to  me  that,  having  carried  on  the  discussion  as  far 
as  we  have,  it  would  be  the  part  of  wisdom  and  of  strategy,  in 
the  best  sense  of  statesmanship,  to  settle  these  two  questions, 
and  then  refer  the  matters  to  committees  that  shall  come  back 
to  a  subsequent  meeting  and  present  an  adjusted  statement  cover- 
ing all  these  points.  We  do  not  to-day  finally  settle  everything. 
We  are  making  progress  toward  settlement  by  putting  down 
tentative  sections  as  we  have  done  before.  Therefore  I  think 
that  would  be  the  better  plan.  I  do  deprecate  our  resting  on  our 
past  too  much  and  our  considering  extraneous  matter,  important 
but  not  essential  now.  We  are  here  to  set  up  high  ideals.  Our 
action  goes  from  this  body  to  the  General  Conference  to  ap- 
praise and  reconsider  and  modify  and  determine  as  to  different 


342    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

adjustments  when  they  come  to  the  broader  discussion.  Then  it 
goes  to  the  Annual  Conferences.  There  is  a  vital  difference 
between  a  statesman  and  a  politician.  I  fear  we  are  unconscious- 
ly dropping  into  the  position  of  the  latter.  It  is  said  that  a 
statesman  leaves  his  footprints  on  the  sands  of  time;  a  politician 
leaves  his  earprints.  I  am  not  too  anxious  to  know  what  is  the 
public  feeling,  but  more  anxious  to  know  what  in  the  sight  of 
God  would  make  for  the  advancement  of  his  kingdom.  And 
then,  if  we  can  have  that  light,  the  matter  can  go  to  the  General 
Conference. 

W.  D.  Bradfield :  I  am  not  quite  so  severe  on  myself  as  I  have 
been,  for  the  last  hour  or  two,  when  I  see  that  strong  men  in 
the  Commission  of  our  sister  Church  are  not  agreed.  I  am 
perfectly  willing  now  to  confess  that  I  voted  with  the  majority 
under  a  misapprehension.  That  vote  with  the  majority  does 
not  represent  the  vote  that  I  would  now  cast.  I  read  minutely, 
I  studied  carefully,  I  was  cognizant  of  every  step  of  progress 
that  this  Commission  had  made  and  given  out  through  its  printed 
report.  I  supposed  that  when  this  item  of  the  number  of  rep- 
resentation was  referred  to  this  Committee  of  Conference  the 
question  was  that  and  nothing  more,  and  that  all  related  matters 
and  agreements  hitherto  made  stood.  Now,  Mr.  President,  I  do 
not  like  to  do  it;  but  if  this  matter  is  not  referred  to  the  com- 
mittee, I  am  almost  compelled  to  ask  that  my  name  be  taken 
from  that  report  and  placed  on  the  minority  report.  I  hope  you 
will  refer  it  back  to  the  committee. 

P.  H.  Linn :  I  want  to  move  to  amend  the  motion  to  recom- 
mit, making  it  a  motion  to  recommit  with  instructions  so  that 
we  may  without  any  further  misunderstanding  come  to  the  com- 
mittee's purpose.  Let  me  say  that  in  the  committee,  of  which 
I  chanced  to  be  a  member,  which  was  to  formulate  the  proceed- 
ings, we  specifically  agreed  that  this  committee  should  report 
not  only  upon  the  status  of  the  negro,  but  upon  correlated  mat- 
ters. That  was  distinctly  and  purposely  stated  by  the  commit- 
tee. So  I  move  that  we  add  this  to  the  motion  as  it  now  stands, 
and  that  we  instruct  the  committee  to  interpret  the  report,  and 
to  report  provisions  covering  the  protection  of  minorities  in  the 
Regional  Conferences.  I  would  have  them  make  this  statement, 
and  I  would  have  them  make  it  very  specific.  In  our  own  Com- 
mission last  night  it  was  distinctly  stated  that  there  were  pro- 
visions for  the  protection  of  the  minority.  But  I  cannot  get 
any  one  to  tell  me  what  they  are  or  where  they  are.  So  I  wish 
those  two  matters  added  distinctly  to  the  work  of  the  committee 
as  we  recommit  these  papers  to  them. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  As  the  maker  of  that  motion,  I  accept  that 
amendment. 

The  member  seconding  the  motion  also  accepted  it. 


Cleveland  Meeting 


343 


Bishop  McDowell :  I  would  like  permission  to  say  a  word 
which  perhaps  is  not  quite  on  the  motion  of  reference.  I  do 
not  know  that  it  is  quite  a  matter  of  personal  privilege.  Mr. 
Chairman,  the  majority  report  proposed  the  creation  of  a  Re- 
gional Conference  for  our  negro  membership.  Over  and  over, 
as  clearly  as  it  could  possibly  be  said,  I  think,  it  has  been  said 
that  this  is  not  the  creation  of  a  Missionary  Regional  Confer- 
ence, or  of  a  Subordinate  Regional  Conference,  or  of  a  Regional 
Conference  on  any  other  status  than  that  of  the  six  white  Re- 
gional Conferences  proposed  in  our  communication  of  day  be- 
fore yesterday.  It  must  be  perfectly  evident,  and  this  has  also 
been  stated,  that  the  adoption  of  this  report  would  carry  with 
it  the  necessity  for  a  reconsideration  and  reexamination  of  cer- 
tain matters  already  tentatively  adopted  by  the  Joint  Commis- 
sion. One  of  those  matters  Dr.  Blake  has  referred-  to  in  the 
question  of  whether  forty-two  men  should  be  permitted  to  elect 
a  bishop  for  that  region,  whereas  one  hundred  or  more  would  be 
required  in  a  white  region.  I  think,  clearly,  that  question  would 
be  raised.  But  there  is  no  possible  doubt  but  that  it  can  be 
equitably  and  fairly  and  wisely  answered.  The  question  is  now 
raised  again  as  to  the  protection  of  the  minority  when  the  mat- 
ter of  voting  by  regions  is  raised  in  the  General  Conference.  I 
think  that  with  all  the  clearness  that  I  could  command  I  de- 
clared that  of  course  the  provision  that  had  already  been  made 
for  the  protection  of  the  minority  in  the  matter  of  regional 
voting  would,  in  the  modified  form  made  necessary  by  the  pres- 
ence of  the  seventh  Regional  Conference,  be  reenacted.  I  meant 
to  make  that  as  clear  as  possible.  I  do  not  know  the  method. 
But,  clearly,  that  is  a  matter  of  honor  with  us.  Now,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, it  must  be  perfectly  clear  that  the  creation  of  the  full  Re- 
gional Conference  for  negroes,  with  the  definition  necessary, 
does  now  reopen  some  matters  that  we  have  tentatively  agreed 
to.  But  we  have  never  agreed  that  we  never  would  reopen  those 
matters.  Every  matter  that  has  been  tentatively  agreed  to  has 
been  held  as  tentative  and  subject  to  final  vote  and  subject  to 
reexamination,  if  the  case  required,  by  either  side.  I  am  stating 
that  with  all  possible  emphasis,  and  with  more  vocalization  than 
I  am  accustomed  to  use  here,  because  I  want  to  make  it  just  as 
clear  as  possible.  Mr.  Chairman,  nothing  worse  could  happen 
to  the  cause  now  than  for  us  to  get  nervous  and  suspicious  and 
into  an  attitude  even  dimly  suspicious  of  the  other  body  as  trying 
by  a  parliamentary  action  to  get  an  advantage.  If  I  felt  that  any 
member  of  our  Commission  was  in  that  attitude  toward  the 
whole  Commission,  nothing  under  heaven  could  induce  me  to 
go  forward  for  one  minute  with  this  work.  We  must  now  be  in 
the  attitude  of  absolute  confidence  and  of  absolute  composure 
of  spirit.    I  am  perfectly  willing  that  the  matter  shall  be  recom- 


344    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

mitted  to  the  Committee  of  Conference.  I  would  be  willing  to 
have  all  the  suggestions  that  the  Joint  Commission  wishes  to 
send  in,  sent  in.  I  therefore  would  be  perfectly  willing  to  have 
the  debate  go  on  for  the  rest  of  the  afternoon  before  the  Joint 
Committee  takes  it  up,  so  that  every  question  remaining  in  any 
one's  mind  shall  be  brought  out  here,  that  we  all  may  see  it. 
But,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  believed,  and  I  do  now  believe,  that 
the  adoption  of  either  of  these  reports,  the  adoption  of  the 
minority  report,  the  adoption  of  the  majority  report,  will  carry 
with  it,  inevitably,  modifications  of  what  we  have  tentatively 
done,  that  cannot  be  reexamined  in  the  length  of  time  we  can 
now  stay  here  unless  we  now  agree  that  we  can  stay  here  for 
ten  days  longer  if  that  is  necessary.  Therefore,  I  would  be  of 
the  opinion  that  the  adoption  of  the  minority  report  or  the  adop- 
tion of  the  majority  report  should  be  followed  by  the  creation 
of  a  representative  Committee  of  Conference  that  should  take 
the  time  to  reexamine  all  that  is  involved.  Every  one  of  these 
subjects  runs  straight  into  every  other  one.  The  geography  of 
one  region  runs  straight  into  the  whole  question  of  geography. 
The  question  of  a  negro  Regional  Conference  runs  straight  into 
the  whole  question  of  the  powers  of  Regional  Conferences  and 
their  character.  Having  gone  over  that  subject,  we  are  not 
barred  from  going  over  it  again,  but  are  compelled,  in  case  we 
adopt  the  majority  report,  to  go  over  it  again  in  the  light  of  new 
action  which  the  adoption  of  that  report  would  constitute.  But 
let  us  never  distrust  one  another  or  be  suspicious  of  one  another 
now.  Let  us  observe  the  confidence  and  trust  that  we  have  had 
from  the  beginning,  increasingly  from  the  beginning.  I  more 
than  half  suspected  you  when  I  first  saw  you;  and  you  had 
grave  suspicion  that  no  man  could  be  as  good  a  man  as  I  looked ! 
But  as  the  years  have  gone  we  have  come  to  mutual  confidence 
and  trust  in  one  another.  Let  us  not  destroy  it  now.  I  am 
willing  to  have  the  matter  go  back  to  a  Committee  of  Confer- 
ence, and  would  be  willing  to  have  that  committee  enlarged.  I 
believe  the  adoption  of  the  majority  report  would  call  for  a 
Committee  of  Conference  that  could  take  its  time  for  working 
out  the  implications  of  that  adoption. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  I  wish,  as  the  maker  of  the  motion  that  this 
whole  matter  go  back  to  a  Committee  of  Conference,  to  say  to 
Bishop  McDowell  and  others  that  there  is  no  question  of  sus- 
picion, none  whatsoever.  Just  dismiss  all  that  forevermore.  We 
are  not  suspecting  anybody.  But  we  want  an  understanding. 
That  is  all.  We  are  not  prepared  to  vote  until  we  really  know 
what  we  are  voting  on.  As  it  now  stands,  we  do  not  know  what 
we  are  voting  for.  We  are  asking,  therefore,  that  it  go  back  to 
the  committee.  I  was  prepared  to  move  that  four  members  be 
added  to  this  committee,  two  from  each  Commission,  in  order 


Cleveland  Meeting 


345 


that  we  might  have  a  larger  committee  to  consider  just  the  ques- 
tion that  we  have  under  discussion.  I  rose  simply  to  say,  do 
not  think  we  are  suspecting  anybody.  Let  us  not  have  that  in 
our  minds.  We  are  not  trying  to  take  advantage  of  you;  you 
are  not  trying  to  take  advantage  of  us.  We  just  want  to  under- 
stand one  another  and  know  exactly  what  we  are  voting  for. 

J.  F.  Goucher:  Do  I  understand  Bishop  Mouzon  to  move  that 
the  committee  be  enlarged  by  four,  two  from  each  Commission  ? 

C.  M.  Bishop:  Bishop  Mouzon  has  completely  expressed  the 
mind  of  the  Southern  Commission  about  nervousness  and  sus- 
picion. I  wonder  whether  Bishop  McDowell  had  us  in  mind  or 
his  own  associates. 

A  Voice :  Both. 

C.  M.  Bishop:  It  is  perfectly  evident  that  members  of  these 
two  Commissions  have  been  thinking  along  different  lines,  and 
that  it  was  very  necessary  that  these  particular  differences  of 
opinion  should  be  brought  out  here.  I  am  under  the  impression 
that  it  would  be  important  to  present  some  other  differences  of 
opinion  before  that  committee  meets.  I  am  disposed  to  think 
that  going  back  to  the  Chattanooga  meeting  for  definition  of  the 
meaning  of  a  Regional  Conference  for  the  colored  people  carries 
us  back  to  Chattanooga  for  a  good  many  things.  I  do  not  re- 
member, gentlemen  (and  certainly  there  is  no  suspicion  or  nerv- 
ousness in  this),  that  the  granting  of  six  Regional  Conferences 
was  a  concession  to  the  Southern  demand.  I  do  not  think  it  was. 
The  Southern  contention  from  the  beginning  was,  Regional  Con- 
ferences of  sufficient  independence  to  protect  local  interests. 
And  it  was  named  a  concession — I  hope  you  will  understand  me 
in  this  and  will  correct  me  if  I  am  wrong — my  impression  is  that 
it  was  named  a  concession  on  the  part  of  the  representatives  of 
the  Church,  South,  when  it  was  tentatively  agreed  at  Traverse 
City  that  the  representatives  of  the  region  in  the  General  Con- 
ference should  constitute  a  Regional  Conference.  That  was  not 
our  idea  to  begin  with.  It  was  never  one  that  was  agreed  to 
with  any  enthusiasm  in  our  Commission,  as  I  understand  it.  It 
certainly  was  never  accepted  as  a  very  wise  provision  so  far  as 
this  Commission  was  concerned.  Therefore,  I  think  we  are 
going  further  back  and  opening  up  other  questions.  I  think  the 
whole  question  of  Regional  Conferences  and  of  the  powers  of 
Regional  Conferences,  and  therefore,  also,  the  powers  of  the 
General  Conference,  are  involved,  and  that  we  had  better  face* 
the  whole  situation,  practically  anew,  practically  where  we  were, 
say,  six  years  ago,  possibly  where  we  were  eight  years  ago  at 
Chattanooga.  But  wherever  we  stand,  whether  it  is  on  the  stand- 
point of  eight  or  six  or  four  years  ago,  or  on  the  standpoint  of 
July  9,  1919,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South  (I  am 
speaking  on  my  own  authority,  but  I  think  I  represent  the 


346    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

Church),  is  strongly  in  favor  of  the  unification  of  Methodism 
in  this  country  and  in  the  world,  so  far  as  our  influence  reaches. 
It  is  strongly  in  favor  of  meeting  the  demands  of  these  critical 
times  by  the  presentation  of  a  united  front  to  the  world,  with  all 
its  hatred  of  some  of  the  things  for  which  we  stand,  some  that 
are  conservative  and  some  that  are  progressive.  The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  will  not  allow  you  to  take  one  single 
step  in  advance  of  its  own  movement  toward  the  solution  of 
these  great  questions.  We  are  with  you.  But  let  us  get  back 
to  where  we  completely  understand  each  other.  I  quite  agree 
that  it  seems  altogether  probable  that  this  matter  will  have  to 
be  committed  to  a  large  committee  to  sit  during  the  intervals  of 
meeting  of  the  Joint  Commission  and  work  out  these  problems. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  am  in  sympathy  with  the  motion  to  recommit 
these  two  reports  to  the  committee.  But  I  think  we  ought  also 
to  refer  with  them  another  document  that  was  under  considera- 
tion at  Savannah  and  St.  Louis,  with  instructions  to  the  com- 
mittee to  consider  any  or  all  parts  of  that  document  that  may* 
assist  the  committee  in  finding  a  solution  of  the  particular  prob- 
lem submitted  to  it,  so  that  when  they  return  their  report  to  this 
Commission  it  will  be  properly  allocated  with  the  whole  docu- 
ment, so  that  you  will  know  exactly  the  value  of  any  report  made. 
I  move  as  a  substitute  for  what  is  before  us  that  we  recommit 
these  two  reports  to  a  Committee  of  Conference,  together  with 
the  entire  document  considered  at  Savannah  and  St.  Louis,  for 
the  consideration  of  any  or  all  parts  of  that  document  that  may 
assist  the  committee  in  arriving  at  a  solution  of  this  particular 
problem.  I  throw  out  this  suggestion  to  be  considered  in  connec- 
tion with  it.  Would  it  not  be  wise  not  only  to  refer  the  paper 
just  named  and  the  two  reports,  but  all  other  papers  in  any  wise 
related,  to  this  committee,  or  to  a  new  committee  if  you  desire? 
Let  that  committee  sit  for  a  week  or  two  weeks  or  whatever 
time  may  be  necessary,  thresh  out  the  whole  matter,  and  get  a 
complete  document  that  will  show  the  bearing  and  relations  of 
all  that  is  done ;  and,  having  completed  their  printed  report,  fur- 
nish it  to  us  a  week  or  more  in  advance  of  our  meeting,  that  we 
may  have  a  full  understanding  of  what  we  have  before  us.  I 
submit  that  if  we  refer  these  matters  to  this  committee  here  now, 
they  will  work  hurriedly  in  order  to  try  to  get  something  to 
throw  into  the  mill  for  us  to  grind.  Their  work  will  not  be 
matured;  it  will  not  be  thought  through.  And  when  we  have 
ground  for  a  time  we  will  then  do  just  what  I  am  now  proposing 
— namely,  recommit  it  all,  adjourn,  and  ask  for  a  committee  to 
work  it  out  and  submit  later. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  I  hope  Dr.  Blake's  motion  will  not  prevail. 
There  is  one  critical  question  which  we  wish  cleared  up.  We 
desire  to  know  if  minorities  are  to  be  properly  protected.  We 


Cleveland  Meeting 


347 


must  know  that  before  we  are  ready  to  vote.  If  you  clear  that 
up  for  us,  and  it  must  be  done  not  merely  by  statements  from 
the  floor  here,  but  cleared  up  in  the  report  that  is  to  be  presented 
to  us — if  you  clear  that  up,  we  are  ready  to  vote.  If  you  refer 
all  that  Dr.  Blake  suggests,  we  are  going  to  adjourn  without 
taking  any  action  whatsoever;  for  it  will  require  days  to  discuss 
all  these  matters  and  relate  all  these  matters  one  to  the  other. 
If  you  will  receive  a  report  with  instructions  indicated  in  the 
motion  made  by  Dr.  Linn,  you  can  discuss  it  with  that  in  view, 
and  bring  back  a  brief  report  to  us,  letting  us  know  whether  or 
not  minorities  are  going  to  be  properly  protected.  Then  we  will 
be  ready  to  vote  and  create  a  larger  Committee  of  Reference, 
and  let  that  be  an  ad  interim  committee,  taking  plenty  of  time 
to  consider  all  these  questions.  I  fear  that  if  Dr.  Blake's  motion 
prevails  we  will  talk  away  all  our  time  and  adjourn  without 
coming  to  a  vote. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  very  items 
which  Bishop  Mouzon  brings  up  do  only  by  the  wildest  stretch 
of  imagination  fall  within  these  two  reports  presented  here. 

P.  H.  Linn :  In  my  motion  I  especially  provided  that  they  re- 
port provisions  either  already  tentatively  adopted  or  that  they 
may  suggest.    That  would  cover  the  matter  you  refer  to. 

Edgar  Blake :  That,  then,  involves  committing  to  this  com- 
mittee more  than  the  reports  as  we  have  them  before  us.  That 
is  what  I  had  in  mind.  You  will  find  that  protection  of  the 
minority  now  listed  under  "voting  powers  of  the  General  Con- 
ference/' Now,  it  is  very  clear  that  when  this  committee  comes 
to  the  question  of  the  status  of  the  negro  in  the  reorganized 
Church,  they  will  have  to  consider  the  very  possibility  of  a  Re- 
gional Conference.  They  will  have  to  consider  the  relation  of 
it  to  other  Regional  Conferences.  They  will  have  to  consider 
this  matter  of  the  election  of  bishops.  What  I  desire  is  this, 
that  we  shall  refer  this  entire  document  for  the  consideration  of 
any  or  all  parts  of  it  that  may  be  necessary  to  assist  the  com- 
mittee in  arriving  at  a  solution  of  the  problems  before  them. 
That  is  my  motion.  It  does  not  compel  them  to  consider  and 
report  upon  the  entire  document.  It  simply  refers  this  docu- 
ment for  them  to  consider  any  or  all  parts  that  may  be  affected 
by  the  resolution  that  they  may  bring  back  to  us. 

P.  H.  Linn:  I  think  all  that  is  carried  by  the  statement  that 
we  instruct  the  committee  to  interpret  their  report.  In  the  in- 
terpretation of  their  report  they  would  have  to  consider  the  re- 
lationship. 

Edgar  Blake :  Do  I  understand  that  Dr.  Linn's  motion  involves 
what  I  aim  at? 

P.  H.  Linn :  Yes,  sir. 

Edgar  Blake:  Then  I  withdraw  my  motion. 


348    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve  secured  recognition. 
On  motion,  the  time  was  extended. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  It  becomes  increasingly  clear  to  me  that  it 
is  now  time  for  us  to  do  one  of  two  things — either  to  act  on 
this  situation  now  before  us,  or  else  to  refer  this  whole  matter 
back  to  a  committee  to  determine,  giving  that  committee  time 
to  perfect  their  report.  We  thought  that  we  had  a  perfectly 
plain  and  simple  proposition ;  that  when  we  said  "Regional  Con- 
ference" there  could  be  no  doubt  that  we  meant  the  same  thing 
as  we  meant  by  any  other  Regional  Conference. 

C.  M.  Bishop :  Has  it  not  been  the  custom  of  this  Commission 
for  a  good  many  months  to  have  two  classes  of  Regional  Con- 
ferences? Does  not  the  Commission  so  understand?  Was  not 
the  colored  Conference  in  one  of  these  classes,  and  was  not  the 
question  of  proportional  representation  so  discussed  when  they 
were  considered  as  a  Regional  Conference  of  the  second  class, 
while  there  were  also  to  be  Regional  Conferences  of  certain  other 
types?   That  is  where  the  confusion  has  arisen  in  our  minds. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  I  grant  that  the  confusion  has  an  origin  in 
what  has  taken  place  before,  but  we  had  not  carried  that  matter 
in  our  minds.  In  speaking  of  the  Regional  Conference  we 
barked  back  to  the  Chattanooga  declaration ;  and  not  until  this 
morning  did  it  occur  to  us  that  there  might  be  another  interpre- 
tation. I  think  it  fortunate  that  the  question  has  come  up.  If 
we  had  completed  action  with  different  understandings  on  this 
point,  trouble  might  have  arisen.  It  is  clear  that  neither  of  us 
wishes  to  gain  any  advantage.  If  this  whole  matter  can  be 
recommitted,  and  the  committee  can  take  up  the  matter  in  full 
of  these  Regional  Conferences  and  the  whole  matter  of  re- 
adjusting of  the  Regional  Conferences,  it  will  be  well.  I  do 
not  think  they  can  clear  up  the  whole  matter  in  a  short  time.  I 
think  that  unless  we  can  understand  that  by  a  colored  Regional 
Conference  we  mean  precisely  the  same  thing  as  we  do  with 
reference  to  a  white  Regional  Conference,  except  as  to  numbers — 

F.  M.  Thomas:  What  would  be  the  status  of  bishops  who 
might  be  elected  by  this  colored  Regional  Conference? 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  Precisely  the  same  as  that  of  bishops  elected 
by  any  other  Regional  Conference. 

F.  M.  Thomas:  Thank  you.   Is  that  clear? 

Edgar  Blake :  Do  we  understand  that  Dr.  Van  Cleve  is  speak- 
ing for  himself  or  for  the  Commission? 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  For  myself  and  also  for  what  I  believe  to 
have  been  the  mind  of  our  Commission  in  the  discussion.  I 
think,  in  view  of  these  differences,  that  they  cannot  be  adjusted 
within  a  few  hours.  It  does  seem  to  me,  unless  we  can  act  with 
this  understanding,  the  readjustment  of  all  these  questions  is 
before  us.    It  seems  to  me,  therefore,  we  ought  either  to  act 


Cleveland  Meeting 


349 


now  or  else  to  adjourn  and  appoint  a  Committee  of  Conference 
and  adjourn,  giving  it  time  to  act,  so  that  we  may  come  together 
and  know  what  is  before  us. 

Bishop  Cannon :  Do  you  mean  to  adopt  without  any  further 
explanation  which  we  can  refer  to  as  authority?  Do  you  mean 
we  should  act  without  defining  every  point  that  is  under  dis- 
cussion ? 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  If  you  are  going  to  open  up  the  report  for 
readjustment  of  the  whole  matter,  it  seems  to  me  it  will  take 
more  time  than  we  have  now  at  our  command. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  raised  this  question  about  two  hours  ago. 
I  have  delayed  making  a  statement,  which  I  really  want  to  make 
as  Chairman  of  that  committee.  But  it  is  12:30  o'clock,  and  I 
hesitate  to  take  the  time  that  would  be  required.  It  seems  to 
me  it  would  be  wiser  to  adjourn. 

Bishop  McDowell :  It  is  evident  that  we  are  confused,  nervous, 
and  liable  to  haste  at  this  minute.  I  believe  every  bit  of  wisdom 
would  now  be  conserved  by  our  taking  our  recess  to  the  regular 
hour  of  meeting  this  afternoon,  with  Bishop  Cannon  on  the  floor 
when  we  reconvene. 

It  was  voted  to  adjourn  to  2:30,  Bishop  Cannon  to  have  the 
floor  at  that  time. 

The  session  closed  at  12:38  p.m.,  the  benediction  being  pro- 
nounced by  Bishop  Cranston. 

Afternoon  Session. 

At  2  :35  p.m.  Bishop  Mouzon  took  the  chair,  announced  that 
Judge  Simpson  would  lead  the  devotions,  and  called  on  Dr.  Neff 
to  lead  in  singing  a  hymn. 

The  hymn,  "Thou  my  everlasting  portion,"  was  sung. 

Judge  Simpson  read  from  the  fourteenth  chapter  of  John. 

Prayer  was  offered  by  Bishop  Ainsworth. 

The  minutes  of  the  morning  session  were  read  and  approved. 

The  roll  was  called  and  the  following  were  present:  Bishops 
E.  D.  Mouzon,  Collins  Denny,  J.  M.  Moore,  James  Cannon,  Jr., 
W.  N.  Ainsworth,  J.  W.  Hamilton,  F.  D.  Leete,  R.  J.  Cooke. 
Ministers :  W.  J.  Young,  C.  M.  Bishop,  W.  D.  Bradfield,  T.  N. 
Ivey,  A.  F.  Watkins,  P.  H.  Linn,  C.  C.  Selecman,  J.  E.  Dickey, 
Edgar  Blake,  D.  G.  Downey,  J.  F.  Goucher,  A.  J.  Nast,  Frank 
Nefr",  C.  B.  Spencer,  J.  W.  Van  Cleve,  J.  J.  Wallace,  F.  M. 
North.  Laymen:  M.  L.  Walton,  H.  N.  Snyder,  P.  D.  Maddin, 
R.  S.  Hyer,  J.  H.  Reynolds,  R.  E.  Blackwell,  T.  D.  Samford, 
J.  R.  Pepper,  H.  H.  White,  J.  G.  McGowan,  A.  W.  Harris,  C. 
W.  Kinne,  E.  L.  Kidney,  J.  R.  Joy,  Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  I  recognize  Bishop  Cannon. 

Bishop  Cannon :  Mr.  Chairman  and  brethren,  it  occurred  to 
me  this  morning  that,  as  the  Chairman  of  the  committee  which 


350    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

brought  in  these  two  reports,  I  should  perhaps  make  a  state- 
ment. Why  should  this  report  be  referred  back  to  the  commit- 
tee? It  is  in  one  sense  an  agreement  on  the  part  of  the  com- 
mittee that  the  report  was  either  not  complete,  or  that  the  lan- 
guage used  was  not  exactly  what  all  the  committee  thought  it 
was,  or  that  it  means  less  or  more  than  the  committee  under- 
stood. I  think  it  is  very  evident,  from  what  was  said  here  this 
morning,  that  all  the  members  of  the  committee  did  not  under- 
stand the  report  to  mean  the  same  thing.  Dr.  Bradfield  and  Dr. 
Blake  both  in  their  statements  clearly  indicated  that  they  did  not 
agree  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  language,  or  the  sweep  of  the 
language,  with  some  other  members  of  the  committee.  Further- 
more, I  think  it  ought  to  be  referred  back  in  order  that  the  com- 
mittee should  have  opportunity  to  reconsider  its  action  in  view 
of  statements  made  this  morning  as  to  the  understanding  of  the 
language  used,  in  order  that  a  statement  may  be  prepared  which 
will  set  forth  in  a  sound  form  of  words  the  plan  proposed  for 
the  protection  of  minorities.  General  statements  are  made,  and 
may  declare  intentions.  But  when  we  have  traveled  all  the  way 
here  and  are  faced  with  the  prospect  of  traveling  back  again  to 
the  same  point,  it  seems  to  me  it  would  be  better  while  we  are 
here  to  see  whether  on  that  point,  which  is  a  vital  point,  some 
form  of  words  could  be  found  which  would  be  satisfactory  to 
both  parties.  Now,  I  am  satisfied  that,  because  our  minds  were 
fixed  upon  the  thought  of  proportionate  or  limited  representa- 
tion in  the  General  Conference,  the  majority  report  did  not  es- 
pecially call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  any  other  matter. 
For  I  am  sure  that  if  the  majority  report  had  said  that  propor- 
tionate representation  meant  that  the  negro  Regional  Confer- 
ence should  have  the  same  rights  and  privileges  as  the  six  white 
Regional  Conferences  are  to  have  in  the  General  Conference, 
every  one  of  us  would  have  seen  at  once  how  great  a  difference 
there  is  between  that  proposition  and  the  proposition  that  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  made  at  St.  Louis.  But  that  point 
was  not  emphasized.  I  realized  somewhat,  while  Bishop  Mc- 
Dowell was  talking  yesterday  afternoon,  that  it  was  evident  that 
in  his  mind  there  was  the  sweeping  thought  that  the  negro  mem- 
bership was  to  have  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  white 
membership.  And  so  when  I  spoke  I  emphasized  a  little  more 
strongly  than  I  might  otherwise  have  done  the  difference  between 
the  two  reports,  and  the  fact  that  the  minority  report  did  put  the 
negro  membership  into  another  classification — into  a  subordinate 
classification.  And  yet  it  did  not  occur  to  me  that  what  I  under- 
stand now  was  clearly  the  thought  of  the  majority  report.  But 
as  the  afternoon  went  on  the  speeches  made  were  such  that  when 
our  Commission  met  last  night  and  the  question  was  raised.  T 
stated  that  while  nothing  was  said  in  the  committee  on  that  point 


Cleveland  Meeting 


351 


except  a  motion  of  indefinite  reference  that  was  not  really  sig- 
nificant, yet  I  did  not  see  how  the  speeches  made  yesterday  after- 
noon could  be  logically  interpreted  in  any  other  way.  So  this 
morning  I  raised  the  question  here,  because  I  felt  that  the  time 
had  come  when  we  should  get  this  question  clearly  settled.  And 
if  the  committee  had  brought  in  a  report  which  was  not  clear, 
and  it  did  not  fully  state  what  all  the  members  of  the  committee 
had  in  mind,  it  should  be  known.  And  I  think  now  the  com- 
mittee should  take  the  matter  up  again.  Now  the  case,  as  I  see 
it,  is  a  very  clear-cut  one.  Stripped  of  all  possible  misunder- 
standing, it  is  something  like  this :  Shall  the  status  of  the  negro 
membership  in  the  reorganized  Church  be  that  of  an  immature, 
undeveloped  child  race,  with  corresponding  privileges,  or  that  of 
a  race  which  should  be  given  exactly  the  same  rights  and  privi- 
leges as  the  white  race,  but  set  apart  into  separate  congrega- 
tions, Annual  Conferences,  and  Regional  Conferences,  solely  on 
the  ground  of  race,  not  to  say  color?  That,  it  seems  to  me,  is 
the  issue  as  we  have  it  to-day.  This  good  brother  sitting  in  front 
of  me  has  been  my  friend  for  many  years.  We  are  real  friends, 
but  he  writes  things  sometimes  that  I  do  not  understand.  I  do 
not  understand  how  he  can  think  that  certain  things  exist.  Now, 
the  issue  is  not  as  Dr.  Spencer  has  said  in  a  recent  number  of 
his  paper,  I  think  perhaps  within  the  last  four  weeks.  He  says 
it  is  the  race  question  that  is  keeping  the  Churches  apart,  one 
Church  standing  for  the  exclusion  of  negroes  from  the  reor- 
ganized Church  because  of  their  color — that  is,  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South;  the  other  Church,  under  its  concep- 
tion of  the  fatherhood  of  God  and  the  heart  of  its  message  to 
the  heathen  world,  unable  to  impose  upon  its  own  loyal  colored 
membership  such  an  exclusion.  Now,  I  say  that  is  not  the  issue. 
That  is  not  the  question  here  to-day.  That  never  has  been  the 
issue,  in  the  language  Dr.  Spencer  used.  It  was  not  the  issue  in 
1844.  It  was  not  the  issue  before  the  war.  The  negroes  were 
in  our  Church.  We  never  thought  of  excluding  them  from  mem- 
bership, in  our  Church.  When  the  war  was  over  and  it  became 
evident  that  unless  some  new  arrangement  was  made — a  new 
arrangement,  for  they  were  in  our  Church — they  would  prac- 
tically all  leave  our  Church,  and  their  leaders  consulted  with  our 
bishops  and  our  other  leaders,  and  the  proposition  was  made  to 
adjust  their  Church  relationship  so  as  to  get  the  best  results  for 
the  development  of  the  kingdom  of  God  among  the  negro  peo- 
ple. Our  leaders  first  proposed  the  Associate  General  Confer- 
ence idea.  When  that  was  proposed,  the  negroes  did  not  want 
it.  They  wanted  an  independent  Church.  We  never  put  the 
negroes  out  of  our  Church.  We  never  put  them  out  of  our 
Church  on  the  ground  of  color.  They  are  out  of  our  Church 
because  they  asked  to  go  out,  and  because  conditions  are  so,  not 


352    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

only  in  the  southern  part  of  the  country  but  in  the  whole  country, 
that  it  has  been  found  better  for  the  negroes  to  worship  in  sep- 
arate Churches  and  to  have  separate  Conferences.  Now,  this 
much  I  wanted  to  say  to  Dr.  Spencer,  because  I  read  this  para- 
graph of  his  in  Columbus  and  I  had  it  in  my  mind  to  say  it  when 
wre  met  in  this  Commission.  And  I  determined,  by  God's  help, 
after  I  was  placed  on  this  special  committee,  to  go  the  full  length 
that  I  could  go,  preserving  the  only  principle  that  is  ever  to 
govern  me  in  my  attitude  toward  the  negro.  At  Savannah  the 
Southern  Commissioners  agreed,  nineteen  to  six,  that  the  negroes 
should  be  represented  in  the  General  Conference.  That  was 
two  years  ago.  This  article  of  Dr.  Spencer's  is  recent,  only 
four  weeks  ago.  We  said  frankly  in  Savannah,  nineteen  to  six, 
"Yes,  we  will  take  the  negro  into  the  General  Conference,  but 
as  a  child  race,  as  an  immature  race."  I  have  wanted  to  go  just 
as  far  as  we  could.  I  wanted  it  to  be  so  that  even  Dr.  Spencer 
would  be  thoroughly  convinced  that  that  statement  of  his  did 
not  have  foundation.  So  I  proposed  to  go  right  up  to  the 
proposition  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  St.  Louis  and 
say,  "Why,  yes.  Take  proportionate  representation  for  your 
present  negro  membership.  It  is  not  a  question  as  to  numbers. 
Bring  the  negro  into  the  Church.  There  is  no  question  at  all 
of  exclusion,  of  keeping  him  out  of  the  Church.  But  bring  him 
into  the  Church  in  the  relationship  in  which  he  ought  to  be  in 
the  Church,  as  a  child  race  and  in  the  same  relation  as  the  Mexi- 
cans and  Brazilians  and  other  races  that  are  undeveloped  and 
have  not  yet  the  capacity  to  come  into  the  great  body  and  to  de- 
termine the  affairs  of  the  Church."  My  children  are  the  joy  of 
my  heart,  and  they  are  in  my  home ;  and  there  are  times  when  it 
is  all  right  for  the  youngest  and  most  immature  of  them  to  be 
present  in  the  family  circle  and  hear  discussions  concerning 
family  affairs.  There  are  other  times  when  only  my  sons  and 
daughters  who  are  of  age  can  gather  with  my  wife  and  myself 
and  discuss  affairs  pertaining  to  the  affairs  of  the  younger  chil- 
dren. I  do  not  love  the  younger  ones  less.  They  are  not  in  that 
discussion  because  it  is  not  best  that  they  should  be  there.  That 
is  the  principle  upon  which  the  minority  report  from  the  begin- 
ning to  the  end  is  based,  and  not  to  exclude  the  colored  man 
from  the  Church.  Let  him  come  into  the  Church,  up  to  say  five 
per  cent,  or  six  per  cent — if  you  brethren  must  cover  the  point 
that  you  have  a  certain  number  of  negroes  in  the  Church  at  the 
present  time — if  you  must  cover  that  point  we  will  not  split 
hairs  on  that.  But  the  principle  upon  which  alone  it  seems  to 
me  we  can  base  our  action  is  on  the  immaturity  of  the  race.  I 
cannot  agree  personally  to  the  idea  that  we  are  to  base  the  set- 
ting up  of  the  negro  into  separate  Churches  and  separate  Re- 
gional Conferences,  as  is  proposed  in  the  minority  report,  solely 


Cleveland  Meeting 


353 


on  the  ground  of  color  and  race.  That  is  another  reason,  quite 
evidently  a  very  different  reason.  They  are  brought  into  the 
General  Conference  under  the  plan  of  our  Northern  brethren 
with  a  proportionate  voice,  but  up  to  that  point  the  only  ground 
on  which  they  are  set  apart  is  the  ground  of  race  and  color. 
Now,  I  say  very  frankly  that  there  is  a  sweep  to  this  majority 
report  that  I  can  hardly  conceive  was  in  the  minds  of  the  breth- 
ren who  signed  it.  I  must  think  that  it  did  not  carry  everything 
to  their  minds  that  it  must  logically  carry.  It  carries  the  selec- 
tion of  negro  bishops  by  the  negro  Quadrennial  Conferences,  and 
they  are  coming  into  the  General  Conference  exactly  as  the  other 
bishops  and  to  be  assigned,  as  the  other  bishops,  by  the  Board 
of  Bishops.  That  is  something  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  has  not  done  in  the  past.  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  has  not  yet  elected  a  colored  man  bishop.  Why?  Be- 
cause of  race?  I  would  not  think  of  saying  that.  It  is  because 
of  his  immaturity  and  because  that  Church  has  not  felt  that  up 
to  the  present  time  it  was  wise  to  put  the  representative  of  an 
immature  race  in  control  of  the  Conferences.  I  think  there  is  in 
their  minds,  as  well  as  in  the  minds  of  Anglo-Saxons  generally, 
a  certain  percentage  of  racial  feeling,  unavoidably.  Not  any- 
thing improper;  but  the  fact  remains  that  this  report  would 
carry  us  further,  in  my  judgment,  than  the  committee  which 
brought  it  in  thought  it  would  do. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  move  the  extension  of  Bishop  Cannon's 
time,  if  he  desires. 

By  unanimous  vote,  the  time  was  extended. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  am  speaking,  of  course,  on  the  motion  to 
refer  and  not  on  the  merits  of  the  case.  That  is  understood. 
Now,  brethren,  I  come  back  to  this  point.  Shall  the  distinction 
we  make  be  on  the  ground  of  race  and  color,  as  the  majority 
proposes,  or  on  immaturity?  I  like  the  word  "missionary"  best. 
I  call  attention  to  what  I  may  have  a  little  pride  about,  and  an 
honest  pride — to  the  fact  that  this  paper  does  have  some  logic  in 
it,  that  there  is  a  thread  running  through  it.  I  do  not  at  all  claim 
originality  for  the  details  of  this  proposition.  The  only  thing 
that  I  tried  myself  to  emphasize  was,  that  I  wanted  to  go  to  the 
extreme  limit  that  had  been  asked  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
brethren  on  the  matter  of  representation  for  the  colored  man, 
always  providing  that  he  remain  in  the  relation  that  this  paper 
places  him  in — namely,  a  missionary  relation,  if  not  by  the  word 
being  used,  by  the  classification  in  which  he  is  placed.  Now,  this 
paper  goes  on,  in  paragraphs  three  and  four,  to  carry  out  the 
idea  of  the  first  and  second  paragraphs,  that  these  Regional  Con- 
ferences, all  of  them,  not  some,  or  simply  those  of  the  colored 
membership,  but  all  shall  have  the  powers  proposed  for  the  Cen- 
tral Conferences  in  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Conferences 
23 


354    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

as  contained  in  the  report  of  the  committee  at  Savannah.  I  can- 
not claim  to  be  as  well  posted  as  Dr.  Bradfield  is.  I  was  in 
Europe  a  good  deal  of  the  time  last  year  and  this  year — certainly 
last  year.  I  did  not  study  the  report  of  the  Savannah  Confer- 
ence as  carefully  as  I  might  have  done.  I  am  not  sure  that,  if  it 
came  to  the  discussion  of  these  powers  proposed  for  the  Central 
Conferences,  I  would  stand  finally  for  this  paper.  Some  of  these 
powers  proposed  for  the  Central  Conference,  upon  study,  I 
might  think  should  be  changed.  But  it  seemed  to  me,  reading 
them  over  as  I  did  night  before  last  as  carefully  as  I  could,  that 
it  was  all  right  to  put  that  clause  in  this  paper,  subject  to  modi- 
fication should  that  become  necessary.  Now,  then,  section  four. 
I  went  further  in  my  thoughts  than  the  brethren  at  Savannah. 
As  you  know,  they  insisted  that  whenever  the  time  came  that 
the  negro  membership  reached,  I  think  it  was,  six  hundred  thou- 
sand, they  should  pass  out  of  the  relationship  which  they  held; 
that  the  General  Conference  must  then  erect  them  into  an  As- 
sociate General  Conference.  I  was  not  satisfied  that  that  was 
necessary.  But  I  did  think  that  after  these  Missionary  Regional 
Conferences  reached  the  point  that  five  or  six  per  cent  was  no 
longer  a  fair  proportionate  representation,  even  though  they 
were  immature  child  races,  if  they  felt  that  they  were  not  being 
fairly  treated,  they  should  have  the  right  to  come  to  the  General 
Conference  and  say,  "Now,  we  have  increased.  We  are  a  large 
body.  And  we  think  you  should  set  us  apart  in  an  Associate 
General  Conference,  giving  us  equal  powers  with  yourselves 
and  with  the  proposed  nexus  between  us."  Therefore  it  is  de- 
clared in  this  paper  that  whenever  these  Regional  Conferences 
attain  a  membership  of  four  hundred  thousand,  it  would  be  pos- 
sible for  each  of  these  Regional  Conferences  to  ask  for  a  dif- 
•  ferent  relation,  and  I  think  the  Church  then  ought  to  give  it. 
Then  the  final  paragraph — namely,  that  the  relation  of  this  Re- 
gional Conference  to  the  General  Conference  may  be  changed 
by  the  vote  of  two  successive  General  Conferences.  I  think  the 
General  Conference  should  have  authority  to  determine  when  the 
time  has  come  for  the  relationship  of  a  Missionary  Regional 
Conference  to  be  changed.  So  this  section  provides  for  it.  I 
thought  it  wiser  to  put  in  "two  General  Conferences,"  to  give 
time  for  reflection  about  it.  Now  I  believe  that  the  thread  in 
this  report  is  one  that  is  not  broken  at  all,  but  that  there  is  one 
single  thread  running  through  it — namely,  that  the  one  way  to 
treat  people  is  to  treat  them  in  accord  with  the  facts  as  they  exist. 
We  have  treated  the  colored  people  in  the  mass  in  all  the  rela- 
tionships of  life  not  as  our  enemies,  not  as  those  with  whom  we 
can  have  no  dealings,  not  as  a  hostile  race,  but  as  a  race  that  is 
under  tutors  and  governors,  as  the  child  is.  And  the  civil  gov- 
ernment in  our  Southern  States,  to  be  frank  about  it.  has  never 


Cleveland  Meeting 


355 


been  animated  by  hostility  to  the  negroes  in  its  resolutions  and 
laws  and  legislation  in  reference  to  the  suffrage.  It  has  had  in 
view  the  best  interests  of  both  races,  that  they  might  live  help- 
fully together.  There  has  been  injustice  sometimes.  Nobody 
has  ever  denied  it.  There  has  been  injustice  in  the  North,  as 
well  as  in  the  South,  on  racial  lines.  But  the  intent  and  pur- 
pose of  the  ruling  classes  (if  I  can  use  that  word),  of  the  domi- 
nating classes,  or  dominant  class  of  the  Southern  people  has  been 
to  order  the  life  in  that  section  of  our  country  so  that  there 
would  be  the  best  results  for  both  races.  We  believe  that  what 
is  true  in  the  State  is  desirable  in  the  Church.  These  brethren, 
these  colored  brethren,  need  our  help  in  the  State.  We  are 
obliged  to  tax  ourselves  for  their  school  fund.  If  it  was  their 
property  alone  that  should  be  taxed  to  educate  them,  they  would 
have  no  schools  at  all  in  some  sections.  They  are  developing  in 
property;  but  we  tax  ourselves  largely  for  their  help.  We  help 
them  build  their  churches.  Almost  every  month  negro  men  and 
women  bring  papers  to  me  and  say,  "Now,  boss,  we  expect  you 
to  lead  in  this;  put  us  down  a  good  bit."  "We  do  help  our  col- 
ored people.  We  do  desire  their  good.  But  to  us  they  are  still 
a  child  race.  And  this  paper  is  drawn  up  in  accord  with  the 
facts  as  we  see  them.  And  we  believe  that  it  would  be  a 
great  mistake  to  put  the  negro  in  any  different  relation.  We 
are  honest  in  it.  And  we  hope  that  if  these  statements  are  re- 
ferred back  to  the  committee  some  plan  can  be  devised  that  will 
meet  the  views  of  both  sides. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  am  sure  we  are  all  very  grateful  to 
Bishop  Cannon  for  this  clear,  consistent,  and  illuminating  state- 
ment. We  have  reached  the  point  where  we  need  clearly  to  say 
what  we  think,  so  that  there  can  be  no  possible  misapprehension, 
or  misunderstanding  of  the  one  by  the  other.  May  I,  then,  with 
this  statement  of  Bishop  Cannon's  fresh  in  your  minds,  make 
another,  even  at  the  risk  of  a  bit  of  repetition,  because  I  want 
the  two  statements  to  be  got  before  us  as  nearly  simultaneously 
as  possible,  this  immediately  succeeding  that?  May  I  say,  then, 
from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Commission,  that  the  proposal  to 
erect  the  negro  membership  into  a  Regional  Conference  and  con- 
stitute it  a  Regional  Conference  was  intended  to  be  perfectly 
understood?  I  desire  now  to  make  it  perfectly  understood. 
We  proposed  to  have  a  proportionate  representation  for  them 
in  the  General  Conference,  "proportionate"  referring  entirely 
to  numbers.  The  limitations  that  are  inevitable  at  present 
are  the  limitations  due  to  the  fact  that  there  would  be  forty 
of  them  instead  of  a  hundred  representing  a  Regional  Con- 
ference. The  adjustments  of  their  powers  in  their  own  Re- 
gional Conference  and  elsewhere,  and  the  definition  of  those 
powers,  will  have  to  be  based  upon  the  fact  that  there  would  be 


356    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

a  smaller  number  of  them;  but  upon  no  other  facts.  It  is  not 
part  of  our  thought  that  they  come  in  with  limitations  of  a  "mis- 
sionary sort,"  limitations  due  to  their  being  an  immature  race, 
limitations  due  to  their  being  a  child  race  (I  am  using  the  word 
Bishop  Cannon  has  used,  solely  because  I  want  to  be  perfectly 
understood),  but  the  limitations  due  to  a  smaller  number  and 
to  a  smaller  number  alone.  The  readjustments  that  would  be 
made  necessary,  it  was  all  the  time  in  our  thought  that  we  should 
make.  But  not  a  readjustment  that  would  constitute  the  negro 
Regional  Conference  subordinate  or  in  a  Class  B  or  in  a  Class 
C  or  in  a  "missionary"  class  or  in  an  "immature"  class ;  but  only 
to  constitute  the  negro  Regional  Conference  in  a  class  by  itself 
with  the  limitations  due  to  its  size — and  to  nothing  else.  I  am 
not  assuming  to  speak  the  mind  of  my  own  Commission,  but  I 
felt  that  for  myself  I  ought  to  make  that  statement  as  represent- 
ing my  mind. 

C.  B.  Spencer:  Well,  Mr.  Chairman,  Bishop  Cannon  takes  me 
off  my  guard.  I  will  say  to  him,  in  answering  what  he  has  just 
directed  at  me  as  if  I  were  a  critic  of  the  Church,  South,  that 
for  many  years  I  have  been  a  student,  and  a  sympathetic  student, 
of  the  relations  of  the  Church,  South,  to  the  Colored  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  I  had  the  acquaintance  of  Dr.  George  Wil- 
liams Walker,  and  with  him  walked  about  Paine  College  at  Au- 
gusta, where  the  portraits  of  Hay  good  and  Galloway  hang  be- 
side the  portraits  of  colored  men.  I  will  go  so  far  as  to  say  that 
I  have  had  the  pleasure  to  address  on  two  different  occasions 
the  General  Conferences  of  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  and  in  each  instance  have  expressed  my  own  heart  as 
well  as  the  heart,  as  I  believe,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  wishing  that  body,  in  which  the  Church,  South,  has  so  keen 
an  interest,  success.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  presence  of  bish- 
ops of  all  the  colored  denominations,  at  the  last  General  Con- 
ference of  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  it  happened 
that  I  made  my  address  when  they  were  there  in  the  interest  of 
the  unification  of  all  the  colored  Methodisms  of  America.  After 
J  had  said  what  should  be  said,  and  from  my  heart,  as  to  the 
experiment  they  were  trying,  the  experiment  of  Paine  College, 
that  wonderfully  interesting  and  successful  institution,  I  was  in 
duty  bound  to  explain  our  own  philosophy.  I  did  it  and  never 
was  more  applauded.  I  say  this  to  correct  Bishop  Cannon's  in- 
timation as  to  ignorance  or  prejudice  on  my  part.  I  can  say  that 
I  have  had,  from  scores  of  leaders  of  that  and  other  colored 
Churches,  at  least  from  a  score  of  them,  the  highest  wish,  ap- 
parently the  most  candid  wish,  that  the  idea  for  which  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  stands  should  have  the  highest  possible 
success.  The  point  I  made  in  that  editorial  to  which  Bishop 
Cannon  has  referred  was  in  reference  to  the  negro  in  the  Gen- 


Cleveland  Meeting 


357 


eral  Conference.  I  will  read  just  about  an  inch  here  from  the 
proceedings  at  Savannah  to  lay  before  the  Joint  Commission, 
whether  I  was  justified  in  the  point  I  was  making — namely,  the 
point  that  the  negro  when  he  reaches  a  certain  number  of  mem- 
bers should  be  excluded  from  the  General  Conference  of  the  re- 
organized Church  because  of  his  color — that  my  editorial  ap- 
proved. Here  is  a  speech  delivered  by  the  John  Marshall  of 
the  Joint  Commission,  Rev.  Dr.  A.  J.  Lamar,  on  this  subject  at 
Savannah.  He  says :  "We  may  as  well  face  this  question  before 
us  squarely  and  understand  just  what  is  involved.  Underneath 
all  your  verbiage  and  different  methods  of  expression  there  re- 
mains this,  difference,  the  difference  between  'may'  and  'must.' 
You  may  say  it  is  a  little  question  of  a  word.  I  believe  it  was 
Mirabeau  in  the  general  assembly  of  France  who  said  that  words 
are  things.  But  Carlisle  said  they  are  tremendous  things  in  the 
mouth  of  a  Mirabeau.  Here  we  are — 'may'  or  'must/  'Must' 
looks  to  definite  association  of  the  negro  in  the  reorganized 
Church  and  affiliation  only  during  a  definite  period,  while  'may' 
leaves  the  whole  question  open."  That  is  to  say,  when  the  negro 
members  reach  a  certain  number,  not  they  "may"  go  out  because 
of  their  color,  but  they  "shall"  or  "must"  go  out  because  of  their 
color.  If  that  is  not  drawing  the  color  line,  cover  it  with  what- 
ever verbiage  and  velvet  allusion  you  wish,  what  is  and  what  can 
be  the  drawing  of  a  color  line?  But  I  will  not  press  the  matter 
further,  except  to  say  that  Bishop  Cannon's  speech  is,  to  say 
the  least,  in  the  history  of  this  Joint  Commission  a  novelty.  I 
hope  what  he  has  said  will  prove  prophetic,  even  if  it  is  not  his- 
torical, and  that  never  again  will  any  Methodist  put  up  any  bar- 
rier against  any  human  being  because  of  color — because  of  race, 
color,  or  previous  condition  of  servitude.  In  that  light  I  accept 
his  remarkable  speech  with  pleasure. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  question  is  on  recom- 
mitting the  report  with  instructions,  recommitting  both  reports. 
If  you  will  recommit  these  reports  with  instructions,  you  will 
say  "Aye";  if  you  are  opposed,  you  will  say  "No."  The  reports 
are  recommitted. 

Bishop  Cranston  took  the  chair. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  I  now  move  that  four  additional  members, 
two  from  each  Commission,  be  added  to  this  Committee  of  Con- 
ference. I  would  have  it  understood  that  in  each  case  it  will  be 
one  minister  and  one  layman. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and,  being  put  to  a  vote,  was  carried. 

Bishop  Mouzon  resumed  the  chair. 

C.  M.  Bishop :  I  move  that  the  Commission  now  adjourn,  in 
order  that  this  Joint  Committee  may  have  time  to  meet,  and  that 
we  meet  to-morrow  morning  at  the  usual  hour. 

This  motion  was  seconded. 


358    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

A.  W.  Harris  :  As  a  matter  of  privilege,  I  ask  instructions  in 
regard  to  a  request.  A  representative  of  the  press  asked  whether 
they  may  have  that  statement  presented  by  the  Commission  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  which  outlined  its  position  upon 
Regional  Conferences. 

Bishop  Cannon:  Do  I  understand  that  they  wish  the  majority 
report  ? 

A.  W.  Harris:  No.-  Simply  the  paper  from  which  Bishop 
McDowell  read. 

D.  G.  Downey :  I  should  think  it  would  hardly  be  proper  to 
give  a  representative  from  one  section  that,  -without  something 
else.  Furthermore,  it  is  recommitted.  I  should  think  the  only 
thing  we  could  give  would  be  a  statement  from  the  Secretary. 
I  move  that  it  be  the  judgment  of  this  Commission  that  the  only 
thing  to  be  given  out  is  a  statement  by  the  Secretary. 

I.  E.  Robinson :  The  whole  matter  is  covered  by  the  rule  which 
says  that  no  action  may  be  given  out  except  a  final  determina- 
tion, and  therefore  the  motion  of  Dr.  Downey  is  not  necessary. 

D.  G.  Downey :  I  understood  that  the  request  was  for  the 
general  press,  not  the  Church  press. 

A.  W.  Harris:  It  is  a  request  from  one  representative  of  the 
Church  press.  • 

A.  J.  Lamar :  I  cannot  see  why,  on  that  representation,  we  in- 
vited the  editors  to  our  meeting,  if  we  intended  that  they  should 
be  here  for  naught.  If  I  remember  aright,  when  this  question 
first  came  up  (I  believe  at  Baltimore,  certainly  at  Savannah,  I 
think  every  time  we  have  met),  the  reason  given  for  it  was  that 
we  should  have  no  star  chamber  proceedings,  but  that  the  widest 
publicity  was  due  our  people.  Those  were  the  reasons  for  the 
motion.  I  opposed  the  motion.  I  do  not  think  it  was  wise.  I 
do  not  think  it  was  in  the  interest  of  exactness  in  our  work  and 
in  the  reports  of  that  work.  But  you  have  voted  to  invite  our 
Church  editors  here.  Why  Church  editors  more  than  anybody 
else,  if  it  were  not  for  the  fact  that  they  may  give  publicity  to 
cur  proceedings?  I  am  thoroughly  opposed  to  inviting  our 
editors  here  and  then  telling  them,  "Gentlemen,  you  are  provi- 
dentially located  here  to  see  and  listen,  but  you  are  under  oath 
not  to  divulge  anything  you  have  heard."  What  is  the  good  of 
that?  We  might  as  well  have  invited  any  other  class  as  editors, 
unless  they  were  to  have  this  privilege. 

D.  G.  Downey:  I  thought  the  reference  was  to  the  general 
press.  My  opinion  is  the  same  as  Dr.  Lamar's.  I  withdraw  my 
motion. 

R.  E.  Backwell :  We  invited  the  Church  editors  here  so  that 
they  might  see  how  we  get  at  our  results,  and  understand  better 
than  by  simply  reading  the  record.  I  do  not  think  it  was  in- 
tended that  they  should  publish  everything.    I  think  it  is  per- 


Cleveland  Meeting 


359; 


fectly  legitimate  for  this  editor  to  ask  whether  this  particular 
thing  ought  to  be  published. 

Edgar  Blake:  If  our  editors  who  are  with  us  have  to  come  here 
to  ask  permission  for  anything  and  everything  they  wish  to  pub- 
lish concerning  our  proceedings,  it  will  take  up  a  good  deal  of 
their  time.  These  men  have  been  selected  by  their  constituent 
bodies  because  they  are  supposed  to  be  men  of  sound  judgment. 
It  would  seem  to  me,  therefore,  entirely  proper  for  us  to  say  to 
our  editors  that  they  are  at  liberty  to  use  any  material  presented 
in  this  meeting  that  may  appear  in  their  judgment  to  be  wise  to 
use.    I  so  move,  that  they  be  accorded  that  privilege. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  second  that  motion.  This  body  may  know 
that  from  the  beginning  of  the  sessions  of  this  Commission  I 
thought  the  proceedings  should  be  published,  certainly  to  a 
limited  number.  I  wish  very  much  that  every  presiding  elder 
and  district  superintendent  of  the  Churches  could  be  somehow 
present  to  hear  these  discussions.  Our  people  need  to  know  not 
only  the  difficulties  we  have,  but  the  agreements  that  we  have, 
the  spirit  in  which  we  meet.  And  I  do  not  see  how  you  can  pos- 
sibly invite  men  here  and  not  say  to  them,  "Gentlemen,  you  are 
to  do  as  your  best  judgment  may  determine."  I  do  not  see  any 
other  way. 

On  request,  Edgar  Blake  stated  his  motion  again;  whereupon 
the  motion  was  put  and  prevailed. 

J.  J.  Wallace,  Ira  E.  Robinson,  W.  J.  Young,  and  R.  S.  Hyer 
were  added  to  the  Committee  of  Conference. 

C.  M.  Bishop:  I  move  that  we  adjourn. 

This  motion  prevailed. 

Announcements  were  made,  and  the  session  closed  at  3 :37 
p.m.,  the  benediction  being  pronounced  by  Dr.  Wallace. 

FOURTH  DAY,  THURSDAY,  JULY  10,  1919. 

At  9:11  a.m.  Dr.  A.  J.  Lamar  said:  "Give  me  your  attention 
a  minute.  Neither  of  our  presidents  is  here.  I  understand  they 
are  detained  by  business  of  the  Commission.  It  is  past  the  hour 
of  meeting.    I  move  that  Bishop  Hamilton  take  the  chair/* 

This  motion  was  carried,  and  Bishop  Hamilton  occupied  the 
chair. 

The  twenty-third  Psalm  was  repeated  in  unison. 
Prayer  was  offered  by  Dr.  Lamar. 

Bishop  Cranston  came  in  and,  at  Bishop  Mouzon's  request, 
took  the  chair. 

The  reading  of  the  minutes  was  called  for,  and  in  the  absence 
of  the  Secretary,  Dr.  Downey  read  the  minutes  of  the  preceding 
session,  which  were  approved. 

The  roll  was  called  and  the  following  were  present:  Bishops 


360    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


J.  M.  Moore,  W.  N.  Ainsworth,  E.  D.  Mouzon,  Earl  Cranston, 
J.  W.  Hamilton,  F.  D.  Leete,  R.  J.  Cooke.  Ministers:  T.  N. 
Ivey,  C.  M.  Bishop,  A.  J.  Lamar.  A.  F.  Watkins,  P.  H.  Linn, 
J.  E.  Dickey,  D.  G.  Downey,  R.  E.  Jones,  Frank  Neff,  E.  M. 
Randall,  C.  B.  Spencer.  Lavmen :  M.  L.  Walton,  H.  N.  Snyder, 
P.  D.  Maddin,  J.  H.  Reynolds,  J.  R.  Pepper,  J.  G.  McGowan, 
I.  G.  Penn,  J.  R.  Joy,  C.  A.  Pollock,  E.  L.  Kidney. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  What  is  the  pleasure  of 
the  Commission?  Is  there  any  word  from  the  committee?  Has 
anybody  any  message  from  the  committee? 

D.  G.  Downey:  I  have  no  message  from  the  committee.  But 
I  was  with  Bishop  Cannon  a  few  minutes  ago,  and  he  said  they 
would  meet  at  nine  o'clock  and  be  here  in  a  few  minutes. 

Bishop  Moore :  I  have  just  had  word,  and  I  think  they  have 
not  finished  their  work;  but  it  will  not  be  more  than  a  few  min- 
utes before  they  report. 

Bishop  Cranston :  It  will  do  us  good  to  spend  some  time  in 
song  and  prayer.    Let  us  sing  "Faith  of  our  fathers !  living  still." 

This  hymn  was  sung,  and  prayer  was  offered  by  R.  E.  Jones. 

The  hymn,  "Pass  me  not,  O  gentle  Saviour,"  was  sung. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  I  am  requested  by  the  Commissioners  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  to  ask  that  you  give  us 
leave  of  absence  for  a  little  time,  while  we  have  a  meeting  of 
our  Southern  Commissioners. 

This  request  was  granted,  and  an  immediate  meeting  of  the 
Southern  Commissioners  was  called. 

At  11  :28  a.m.  the  Southern  Commissioners  came  in. 

Bishop  Cranston :  The  Commission  will  be  in  order,  please. 

Ira  E.  Robinson :  Bishop,  it  seems  necessary  that  the  Joint 
Committee  of  Conference  confer  again,  just  for  a  moment. 

The  permission  to  do  this  was  given.  The  Joint  Committee 
retired  and  returned  after  a  brief  interval. 

Bishop  Cranston:  Is  the  committee  ready  to  report? 

Bishop  Cannon :  Just  one  moment,  Mr.  Chairman. 

At  11:42  Bishop  Cranston  said:  The  Commission  will  be  in 
order.  Brethren,  before  we  hear  this  report,  while  our  minds 
are  in  some  stress  of  action  I  feel  that  we  can  find  no  better 
place  than  the  heart  of  God.  I  am  going  to  ask  Bishop  Leete 
and  Bishop  Mouzon  to  lead  us  in  prayer. 

Prayer  was  offered  by  Bishop  Leete. 

Bishop  Mouzon  led  while  all  present  united  in  repeating  the 
Lord's  Prayer. 

Bishop  Cranston:  Shall  we  have  the  report? 

Bishop  Cannon :  Mr.  Chairman,  your  committee  to  which  was 
referred  the  question  of  the  status  of  the  negro  in  the  unified 
and  reorganized  Church,  to  which  was  referred  on  yesterday  the 
two  papers  which  were  presented  to  this  body  by  the  committee, 


Cleveland  Meeting 


also  the  collateral  questions  that  arose  therefrom,  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  paper  and  the  consequences  which  seemed  to  us  to 
follow  from  the  adoption  of  the  papers,  had  two  or  three  ses- 
sions and  went  over  the  matter  very  thoroughly ;  and  we  present 
to  the  Joint  Commission  two  statements,  each  signed  by  seven 
members ;  one  of  which  will  be  read  by  Dr.  Blake,  and  the  other, 
as  a  part  of  it  is  in  my  handwriting,  I  suppose  I  had  better  read. 

Edgar  Blake  presented  one  report  from  the  Committee  of 
Conference,  as  follows: 

Report  of  the  Committee  of  Conference. 

We  propose  to  the  Joint  Commission  that  the  colored  membership  of 
the  Church  shall  be  constituted  and  recognized  as  a  Quadrennial  or 
Regional  Conference,  with  proportionate  representation  and  the  same 
rights  and  privileges  in  the  General  Conference  as  belong  to  other  Regional 
Conferences,  recognizing  fully  the  limitations  at  present  due  to  the  smaller 
number  of  members  who  would  constitute  the  colored  Regional  Confer- 
ence. 

1.  In  harmony  therewith,  we  recommend  the  amendment  of  Article 
IX.,  Section  4,  Subsection  4  (page  12  of  the  Savannah  folder),  by  the 
substitution,  in  line  3,  of  the  words  "two-thirds"  for  the  words  "a  ma- 
jority of,"  so  that  the  section  shall  read: 

"Whenever  a  majority  of  each  of  two  Regional  delegations  shall  so 
request,  a  vote  shall  be  taken  on  any  pending  motion  or  resolution,  except 
amendments  to  the  Constitution,  by  Regional  delegations,  and  it  shall  re- 
quire the  concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  the  Regional  delegations — the  mem- 
bers thereof  voting  as  one  body — to  adopt  said  motion  or  resolution; 
provided,  however,  that  no  motion  or  resolution  shall  be  adopted  that 
does  not  receive  a  majority  vote  of  the  members  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence present  and  voting." 

2.  We  recommend  that  Article  IX.,  Section  3,  Subsection  3  (page  12 
of  the  Savannah  folder),  be  amended  to  read  as  follows  (fifth  line)  : 

"The  general  superintendents,  before  the  General  Conference  convenes, 
shall  elect  from  their  own  number,  by  a  two-thirds  vote,  one  bishop  or 
more  to  preside  during  the  session." 

3.  We  recommend  that  Article  IX.,  Section  2,  Subsection  7  (page  10 
of  the  Savannah  folder),  be  amended  by  adding  after  the  word  "super- 
vision," in  the  tenth  line,  the  words  "if  a  majority  of  the  resident  bishops 
of  the  jurisdiction  to  which  he  is  assigned  shall  concur  in  said  assign- 
ment/' 

4.  We  recommend  that  to  Article  VI.  (pages  1  and  2  of  the  Savannah 
folder)  there  be  added  a  section  to  be  numbered  (7),  reading  as  follows: 
"The  Annual  Conferences,  Mission  Conferences,  and  Missions  embracing 
the  work  among  colored  people  in  the  United  States." 

5.  We  recommend  that  Article  VI.,  Section  2  (page  4  of  the  Savannah 
folder),  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Conferences  for  a  restatement 
in  harmony  with  the  principles  of  this  report. 

6.  We  recommend  that  Article  VII.,  Section  1  (page  3  of  the  Savan- 
nah folder),  be  amended  by  the  omission  of  Subsection  1,  and  that  the 
subsections  be  renumbered  accordingly,  also  that  the  words  "not  other- 
wise provided  for"  be  omitted  from  Subsection  2. 

This  report  was  signed  by  the  seven  members  of  the  Commit- 
mittee  on  Conference  who  represented  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.   The  following  statement  was  appended: 


362    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

In  the  foregoing  report  every  suggested  matter,  wherever  it  was  thought 
by  any  one  that  the  minority  might  be  at  a  disadvantage,  and  every  precau- 
tion suggested  as  possibly  necessary  to  prevent  the  minority  from  being 
intruded  upon  or  voted  down  by  the  negro  membership,  was  considered, 
and  a  remedy  found,  which  every  member  of  the  Joint  Committee  declared 
to  be  adequate.  If  there  are  other  matters  not  suggested  to  us,  but  need- 
ing action,  we  will  gladly  consider  them,  with  the  desire  to  throw  about 
the  minority  such  additional  safeguards  as  may  be  necessary. 

Bishop  McDowell :  This  supplementary  statement,  by  the  con- 
sent of  the  other  members  of  the  Committee  on  Conference,  was 
added  without  having  been  submitted  to  the  body.  I  think  per- 
haps there  may  be  a  numerical  inaccuracy  in  it,  which  we  did 
not  intend.  It  states  that  every  member  of  the  committee  ex- 
pressed the  opinion  that  these  were  adequate  protections.  I  think 
we  asked  last  night  if  any  additional  statements  were  desired. 
As  I  now  remember,  Dr.  Thomas  was  not  present,  and  I  feel  that 
I  ought  to  make  the  exception  to  that  statement  that  was  due  to 
Dr.  Thomas's  absence.  He  did  not  hear  the  questions  that  were 
asked. 

F.  M.  Thomas :  I  was  present  for  a  while  and  heard  several 
of  them.  To  my  thinking,  those  only  cover  a  phase  of  the  prob- 
lem. In  fact,  there  were  some  very  profound  principles  under- 
lying, that  could  not  possibly  be  touched  on.  It  would  in  no 
wise  represent  all  the  facts,  to  say  that  they  were  adequate,  be- 
cause I  do  not  think  they  can  be  adequately  guarded  by  any  form 
of  legislation.  You  cannot  contravene  principles  by  legislation 
or  get  around  them  by  legislation,  because  sooner  or  later  they 
will  face  you  from  some  standpoint. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  made  the  statement  in  Dr.  Thomas's  be- 
half that  we  do  not  intend  to  hold  him  at  this  point.  Mr.  Chair- 
man, I  think  we  ought  to  hear  the  second  statement.  I  wish  to 
move  the  adoption  of  the  statement  just  made  by  Dr.  Blake,  so 
as  to  keep  the  matter  in  proper  form. 

Bishop  Cannon :  That  is  not  exactly  in  order  until  the  whole 
report  is  made,  this  part  of  the  report  of  the  committee : 

Report  of  the  Committee  of  Conference  Concerning  the  Status 
of  the  Negro  in  the  Unified  and  Reorganized  Church. 

We  suggest : 

1.  That  there  be  the  following  additional  Regional  Conferences: 

(1)  The  Regional  Conference  for  Colored  People  in  America. 

(2)  The  Regional  Conference  for  Latin  America. 

(3)  The  Regional  Conference  for  Europe  and  Africa. 

(4)  The  Regional  Conference  for  Eastern  Asia. 

(5)  The  Regional  Conference  for  Southern  Asia. 

2.  These  Regional  Conferences  shall  each  have  representation  in  the 
General  Conference  in  proportion  to  their  membership  in  full  standing; 
provided,  that  each  of  such  Regional  Conferences  shall  be  entitled  to  at 
least  five  clerical  and  five  lay  delegates  ;  provided,  further,  that  the  num- 
ber of  delegates  from  any  one  of  these  Conferences  shall  not  exceed  five 
per  cent  of  the  entire  membership  of  the  General  Conference. 


Cleveland  Meeting  3^3 

3.  These  Regional  Conferences  shall  have  the  powers  proposed  for  the 
Central  Conferences  as  contained  in  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Con- 
ference as  amended  at  the  Savannah  session  of  the  Joint  Commission  on 
Unification. 

4.  Whenever  the  membership  in  full  standing  of  any  of  these  Regional 
Conferences  shall  exceed  four  hundred  thousand,  upon  request  of  said 
Conference  the  General  Conference  shall  organize  the  membership  of  said 
Conference  into  an  Associate  General  Conference  with  the  powers  pro- 
posed for  such  Associate  General  Conference  in  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  Conference  at  the  Savannah  meeting  of  the  Joint  Commission. 
Such  Associate  General  Conference  shall  have  representation  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  ten  clerical  and  ten  lay  delegates,  with  the  right  to 
speak  and  to  vote  in  the  General  Conference  on  all  matters  which  affect 
their  relation  to  the  Church. 

5.  The  relation  of  these  Regional  Conferences  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence may  be  changed  by  the  vote  of  two  successive  General  ConfeVences. 

6.  That  we  reaffirm  the  action  of  the  Commission  taken  at  Savannah 
in  reference  to  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

Respectfully  submitted.  James  Cannon,  Jr., 

F.  M.  Thomas, 
W.  D.  Bradfield, 
W.  J.  Young, 
H.  H.  White, 
P.  D.  Maddin, 
R.  S.  Hyer. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  think,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  in  presenting  this 
report  I  should  say  that  Bishop  McDowell  is  correct,  and  the 
question  was  asked  whether  there  was  any  suggestion  as  to  the 
protection  of  minorities.  And  the  reply  was  made  that  we  could 
not  at  that  time  think  of  any  suggestion  upon  that  subject,  but 
that  it  was  very  evident  that  the  adoption  of  that  statement 
would  raise  certain  questions  which  would  have  to  be  considered 
later  on,  some  very  important  questions;  but  that  it  was  not 
necessary  for  that  committee  to  take  up  those  questions  and  con- 
sider them  for  the  purpose  of  clearness.  And  that  it  was  simply 
a  question  of  whether  the  results  that  came  from  that  would  be 
adjusted  later. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  I  have  a  statement  which  I  think  should  be 
made  at  this  point.  I  am  instructed  by  the  Commission  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  to  say  to  you  that  we  are 
unanimous  in  preferring  the  report  presented  by  our  representa- 
tives on  this  Joint  Committee  of  Conference.  I  am  also  in- 
structed to  say  to  you  that  the  majority  of  the  Commission  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  presents  this  report 
which  has  just  been  read  by  Bishop  Cannon  to  you  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  as  a  definite  proposal.  I  am  also  in- 
structed to  say  to  you  that  if  you  cannot  see  your  way  clear  to 
accept  this  definite  proposal  made  by  us,  we  desire  that  a  Joint 
Committee  of  Reference.,  an  ad  interim  committee,  be  appointed, 
whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  take  under  consideration  the  whole 
matter  of  the  unification  of  American  Methodism  and  report  at 


364    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


a  time  to  be  agreed  upon  by  our  Joint  Commission  on  Unifica- 
tion. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Does  the  Chair  under- 
stand that  the  two  documents  come  before  the  house  as  reports 
from  the  committee,  or  that  the  committee,  by  agreement,  tacit 
or  otherwise,  intended  that  they  should  appear  simply  as  state- 
ments? I  have  never  been  confronted  by  just  such  a  parlia- 
mentary proposition  before.  Xeither  seems  to  be  presented  as 
a  report,  but  both  as  statements.  It  might  of  course  be  compe- 
tent for  the  Commission  to  adopt  a  statement,  but  what  would  it 
signify?  That  opens  a  question  which  is  beyond  parliamentary 
usage,  so  far  as  I  understand  it. 

Bishop  McDowell:  Mr.  Chairman,  it  will  be  remembered  that 
yesterday  a  report  was  presented  which  was  characterized  as  a 
majority  report — if  yesterday  was  the  day;  and  that  afterwards 
a  report  was  presented  which  was  characterized  as  the  minority 
report.  A  motion  was  made  for  the  adoption  of  the  majority 
report,  and  the  motion  was  then  made  to  substitute  the  minority 
for  the  majority  report.  The  Joint  Committee  on  Conference — 
I  will  ask  Bishop  Cannon  to  observe  this  statement — the  Joint 
Committee  on  Conference  last  night  agreed  that,  presenting  a 
statement  in  behalf  of  that  Joint  Committee  upon  which  the  com- 
mittee had  divided  evenly,  and  therefore  created  a  rather  ex- 
traordinary parliamentary  situation,  as  you  have  just  stated — 
it  was  agreed  that  the  parliamentary  status  of  these  two  docu- 
ments should  be  the  same  as  the  parliamentary  status  of  the  so- 
called  majority  and  so-called  minority  report  as  presented  previ- 
ously. In  other  words,  the  statement  just  read  by  Dr.  Blake 
would  be  regarded  as  the  first  of  the  papers,  and  a  motion  made 
to  adopt  it.  The  statement  presented  by  Bishop  Cannon  would 
be  regarded  as  the  second,  and  a  motion  made  to  substitute  it 
for  the  other.  I  make  that  statement  only  for  the  purpose  of 
making  the  record  perfectly  clear.  It  may  be  that  the  Joint 
Commission  now  desires  and  will  desire,  rather  than  to  have 
these  two  motions  presented — namely,  the  motion  for  the  adop- 
tion of  the  paper  read  by  Dr.  Blake  and  a  motion  made  to  sub- 
stitute the  paper  presented  by  Bishop  Cannon — it  may  be  that 
the  Joint  Commission  would  prefer  that  the  two  motions  be 
held  in  abeyance.  I  am  only  stating  the  case  for  the  purpose  of 
having  it  technically  in  the  record  in  accord  with  our  agree- 
ment, in  order  that  the  Joint  Commission  may  consider  the  state- 
ment presented  by  Bishop  Mouzon  in  behalf  of  the  Southern 
Commission. 

Bishop  Cannon :  The  committee  recommended  that  the  desig- 
nations "majority"  and  "minority"  be  not  used;  that  the  com- 
mittee would  present  two  papers,  which  would  have  equal  stand- 
ing before  the  Commission,  one  signed  by  seven,  the  other  signed 


Cleveland  Meeting 


by  seven.  But  there  was  no  zeal  on  one  side  or  the  other  to  de- 
termine which,  in  a  parliamentary  way,  should  be  placed  before 
the  body  to  be  adopted  and  the  other  to  be  substituted,  provided 
it  is  understood  that  the  papers  have  equal  weight,  coming  from 
the  committee  signed  each  by  seven  members.  It  is  a  very  im- 
material matter  as  to  whether  the  adoption  of  one  is  moved  first 
or  the  adoption  of  the  other.  So  I  stated  very  frankly  to  Bishop 
McDowell  last  night  that  the  papers  should  take  that  order ;  that 
the  motion  should  be  made,  when  it  was  made,  that  the  paper 
signed  by  the  representatives  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
should  be  moved  for  adoption  and  the  other  offered  as  a  substi- 
tute. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  I  move  as  a  substitute  for  all  the  motions 
before  the  house  that  this  Commission  adopt  the  suggestion  made 
by  Bishop  Mouzon  on  behalf  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  and  that  an  adequate  committee  be  appointed  to  consider 
the  whole  subject,  pending  an  adjournment  to  such  time  as  we 
shall  be  called  together  by  the  Joint  Commission. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranstoh)  :  The  Chair  finds  the  fol- 
lowing record  of  the  motion  of  reference :  The  motion  was  that 
both  reports  be  referred  back  to  a  committee  in  order  that  all 
these  related  matters  may  be  worked  out  and  the  reports  per- 
fected and  that  we  instruct  the  committee  to  interpret  the  report 
and  to  report  provisions  either  already  tentatively  adopted  or 
which  they  may  recommend  for  adoption,  covering  the  protec- 
tion of  minorities  in  the  reorganized  Church.  That  shows  a 
continuity,  parliamentary  continuity  at  least,  between  the  reports 
that  were  before  the  Commission  yesterday  and  the  statements 
that  are  made  now.  They  are  in  effect  an  interpretation  of  the 
report,  reenforced  by  such  recommendations  as  seem  to  be  neces- 
sary added  to  them.  The  motion  made  by  Judge  Simpson  just 
now  recognizes  this  situation,  being  a  substitute  for  all  other 
motions  before  the  house — that  is,  as  a  substitute  for  the  motion 
to  adopt  the  minority  report  and  for  the  original  motion  to  adopt 
the  majority  report. 

Bishop  McDowell :  We  are  not  using  those  words  any  more. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  I  say,  those  are  the  mo- 
tions before  the  house;  and  they  were  just  as  I  have  stated  them. 

Bishop  Moore :  Are  those  motions  before  the  house  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  the  whole  matter  was  referred  to  a  committee 
who  now  bring  back  these  papers? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  You  were  instructed  to 
perfect  the  report  and  add  such  provisions  as  were  necessary. 

Bishop  McDowell :  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  we  are  not  much 
disposed,  any  of  us,  to  stand  for  parliamentary  refinements,  how- 
ever accurate,  at  this  moment. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Yes,  but  it  is  the  business 


366    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

of  the  Chair  to  keep  his  head  straight;  otherwise  the  record  may 
become  confusing  to  even  ourselves. 

Bishop  McDowell :  This  Chair,  as  a  rule,  does  not  have  to 
exert  himself  to  keep  his  head  straight !  But,  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
think  we  are  all  of  one  mind,  that  Judge  Simpson's  motion  may 
properly  be  before  us  in  exactly  the  form  in  which  he  has  made 
it.  At  least,  by  common  consent,  I  think,  we  could  put  it  in 
that  form.  But  I  would  like  to  hear  Bishop  Mouzon's  declara- 
tion again  before  we  take  this  vote. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  Mr.  Chairman,  we  desire  to  say  to  you,  first, 
that  the  Commission  representing  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  is  unanimous  in  preferring  the  report  read  by 
Bishop  Cannon.  Secondly,  that  a  majority  of  the  Commission 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  presents  this  report 
to  you  as  a  definite  proposal  coming  from  the  Commission  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  Third,  that  in  case 
you  do  not  see  your  way  clear  to  accept  this  definite  proposal 
coming  from  us,  we  wrould  request  that  a  Joint  Committee  of 
Reference  be  appointed  to  whom  shall  be  referred  the  whole 
matter  of  unification;  this  committee  to  report  back  at  a  time 
to  be  agreed  upon. 

Bishop  McDowell :  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  we  are  endeavoring 
at  this  particular  minute  to  do  a  very  wrise  and  proper  thing. 
We  have  allowed  the  two  statements  to  come  in  from  the  two 
sections  of  the  Joint  Committee  of  Conference,  exactly  on  a 
parity,  not  counting  either  a  "majority"  or  a  "minority,"  but 
putting  them  exactly  on  a  parity.  Now  the  statement  made 
on  behalf  of  the  Commission  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  which  is  made  by  Bishop  Mouzon,  might  with  exactness 
(I  think  in  exactly  those  terms,  with  very  slight  change)  rep- 
resent our  own  attitude  concerning  the  report  presented  by  us. 
It  would  read  like  this :  We  desire  to  state  to  you  that  the  Com- 
mission of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  unanimously  states 
its  preference  for  the  statement  signed  by  the  representatives  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Wre  state,  secondly,  that  the 
majority  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
present  the  aforesaid  report  as  a  definite  proposal  to  the  Com- 
mission of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  We  state  to 
you,  in  the  third  place,  that  in  the  event  that  the  Commission 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  cannot  accept  this 
proposition,  then  we  request  the  appointment  of  an  ad  interim 
committee  to  consider  the  entire  subject  of  unification  and  to 
report  back  to  a  joint  session  of  the  Commission,  at  a  time  to 
be  agreed  upon.  Now,  the  nub  of  the  matter  is,  Mr.  Chairman, 
that  upon  two  statements  presented  here  with  exact  equality,  as 
from  the  Joint  Committee  of  this  body,  we  make  a  common 
motion  upon  the  basis  of  two  statements  exactly  similar.  I 


Cleveland  Meeting  ■  367 


think  you  all  see  why  I  am  doing  that.  It  is  that  it  shall  not 
appear,  here  or  anywhere,  that  one  Commission  submitted  a 
proposition  which  the  other  did  not  accept,  but  that  it  shall 
appear  that  each  Commission  submitted  a  proposition  and  that 
we  then  united  in  the  creation  of  a  Joint  Committee  to  consider 
the  subject  further.  And  my  object  in  making  this  motion,  or 
really  my  object  in  supporting  Judge  Simpson's  motion,  with 
this  parliamentary  statement,  is  this :  that  I  believe  that  it  will 
minister  in  the  long  run  toward  what  in  our  hearts  we  earnestly 
desire — namely,  an  agreement.  And  I  would  not  like  to  have 
this  Joint  Commission  adjourn  with  our  brethren  from  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South,  going  out  to  say,  "We  sub- 
mitted a  proposition  which  they  did  not  accept."  I  would  not 
like  to  have  the  Commission  adjourn  with  us  going  out  saying, 
"We  submitted  a  proposition  that  the  Southern  Commission  did 
not  accept,"  and  that  the  fault,  therefore,  of  the  failure  lies 
upon  one  side  or  the  other.  I  am  wanting  that  the  statement,  as 
far  as  the  presentation  is  concerned,  shall  be  exactly  the  same 
statement  concerning  each  of  us,  and  that  we  shall  then  unite  in 
the  adoption  of  the  motion  which  Bishop  Mouzon  has  presented 
in  the  form  of  a  statement  and  which  Judge  Simpson  moves  shall 
be  adopted.  Now,  if  there  is  any  way  by  which  we  can  get 
more  nearly  on  a  parity  of  good  will  and  of  parliamentary  level, 
I  would  like  to  know  just  how  it  could  be  done. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  would  like  to  know  whether  Judge  Simp- 
son's motion  is  exactly  the  same  as  Bishop  McDowell  read. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  It  is  the  same  thing  that  appeared  in  the 
last  clause  of  Bishop  Mouzon's  statement. 

Bishop  Cannon :  That  we  consider  the  whole  subject  of  uni- 
fication and  report  to  a  meeting  to  be  held  here? 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  The  practice  has  always  been  that  the 
chairmen  of  the  two  separate  Commissions  determine  the  place, 
each  consulting  with  other  members. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  simply  wish  it  understood  that  it  is  the  de- 
sire of  our  Commission,  at  least  I  so  understand,  and  it  cer- 
tainly is  my  desire,  that  this  committee  to  be  appointed  shall  get 
to  work  and  shall  endeavor  to  bring  back  to  the  Joint  Commis- 
sion a  report  at  as  early  a  date  as  it  is  possible  for  it  to  do  so ; 
certainly,  that  there  should  be  some  report  before  the  meeting 
cf  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

Bishop  Leete :  These  two  reports  have  been  read,  but  they  were 
read  for  information  of  the  Commission,  and  I  am  not  conscious 
that  they  were  formally  accepted.  I  suppose  Judge  Simpson's 
motion  implies  that  they  are  formally  received  and  are  part  of 
our  records.  But  it  seems  to  me  we  ought  to  have  no  doubt 
about  that. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  The  suggestion  comes  from  the  Commission 


368    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

representing  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  that  this 
Joint  Committee  of  Reference  consist  of  fourteen,  seven  from 
the  one  Church  and  seven  from  the  other.  I  move  that  as  an 
amendment. 

The  amendment  was  accepted  by  the  maker  of  the  motion. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  It  just  occurred  to  me  that  the  instructions,  if 
you  may  call  them  such,  of  that  committee  are  rather  broad  and 
indefinite — "The  whole  question  of  unification."  I  think  we 
ought — I  am  not  sure  it  is  necessary;  but  would  it  not  be  well 
to  recommend  to  that  committee,  and  to  instruct  them,  espe- 
cially to  consider  the  three  questions  which  are  vital?  A  great 
many  things  are  not  vital.  But  three  things  are  vital.  One  is 
the  relation  of  the  colored  membership  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  in  the  reorganized  Church.  A  second  is  the  or- 
ganization, the  powers  and  rights,  of  the  Regional  Conferences. 
The  third  is  your  Judicial  Council.  Those  are  the  three  big 
things  we  have  got  to  consider.  I  think  it  would  be  well  for  us 
to  let  the  committee  know,  anyway,  that  those  things  are  inter- 
laced. You  cannot  deal  with  the  question  of  the  position  of  the 
colored  membership  in  the  reorganized  Church  without  running 
into  the  organization,  powers,  and  privileges  of  the  Regional 
Conferences;  and  also,  you  cannot  deal  with  either  of  those 
questions  without  getting  at  last  to  your  Judicial  Council.  And 
I  think  that  the  committee,  if  necessary,  should  be  instructed  to 
bring  in  as  full  a  report  as  possible  on  those  three  points. 

Bishop  Hamilton :  I  so  often  agree  with  my  good  brother,  Dr. 
Lamar,  that  I  would  almost  hesitate  to  differ  from  him  now.  But 
I  do  not  feel  for  myself  as  though,  after  all  we  have  done  in 
two  years,  we  ought  now  to  instruct  a  competent  committee  con- 
cerning this  subject  in  any  possible  direction.  I  would  think  it 
a  very  unfortunate  matter  if  these  brethren  should  come  back 
with  precisely  the  same  statements  that  they  have  brought  to  us 
to-day,  seven  and  seven.  I  can  conceive  of  an  entirely  different 
plan,  by  which  I  think  we  could  come  nearer  together  than  that 
which  is  expressed  in  either  or  both  of  these  reports.  I  have 
no  desire  to  present  it.  But  I  do  feel  that  the  hands  and  minds 
and  hearts  of  that  committee  ought  not  to  be  tied  in  any  direc- 
tion. And  that  for  several  reasons.  I  will  just  indicate  one  of 
them.  In  referring  to  what  my  good  Brother  Thomas  told  us 
yesterday  about  irreconcilable  concepts,  I  want  to  say  that  con- 
cepts change,  but  truth  and  righteousness  never.  We  are  living  in 
a  period  of  transition.  We  are  being  influenced  by  the  atmosphere 
in  which  we  live;  and  that  atmosphere  is  being  created  by  con- 
ditions and  not  theories.  I  do  not  know  how  long  this  com- 
mittee will  be  at  work ;  I  do  not  know  when  they  will  first  meet, 
I  do  not  know  how  long  they  may  find  it  necessary  to  be  together. 
But  I  do  say  that  it  is  possible  for  conditions  and  not  theories 


Cleveland  Meeting 


369 


to  exist  in  the  future  which  may  determine  the  kind  of  reports 
they  will  bring  back  here.  I  therefore  feel  that  while  I  sym- 
pathize with  Dr.  Lamar  as  to  those  matters  that  he  has  presented, 
which  must  be  considered,  I  would  not  want  to  instruct  the  com- 
mittee to  consider  only  the  three  things  that  he  has  mentioned; 
for  the  reason  that  I  believe,  finite  as  we  are,  there  are  possible 
changes  or  possible  applications  of  the  report  not  yet  in  mind, 
that  could  be  presented  here  and  bring  us  more  nearly  together 
than  seven  and  seven. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  had  no  intention  of  offering  a 
resolution.  I  just  wanted  to  impress  upon  the  committee  to  be 
appointed  these  three  things,  that  they  are  to  come  back  to  us 
with  a  report  on  the  colored  question,  with  a  report  on  the  other 
questions.  And  I  think  that  the  last  statement  which  has  been 
listened  to  here  and  emphasized  by  Bishop  Hamilton's  speech 
has  accomplished  everything  necessary. 

J.  F.  Goucher  moved  an  extension  of  the  time  of  the  morning 
session,  and  the  motion  prevailed. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  The  question  is  on  the 
motion  offered  by  Judge  Simpson. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  It  was  in  the  minds  of  the  Commission  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  that  we  might  desire 
to  appoint  an  entirely  different  committee  from  the  one  we  have 
here,  or  you  might  so  desire. 

A  vote  being  taken,  the  motion  offered  by  Judge  Simpson  was 
adopted. 

Bishop  Cannon:  I  move  that  the  Secretary  be  requested  to 
have  fifty  copies  made  of  each  of  these  two  statements,  so  that 
each  member  may  have  two  copies ;  or  that  he  make  as  many  as 
may  be  necessary  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  Commission  and  the 
newspapers. 

C.  A.  Pollock:  Does  that  include  also  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee that  will  be  presented  to  us  at  the  next  meeting? 

J.  R.  Pepper:  I  second  the  suggestion  of  Judge  Pollock.  I 
think  it  is  important  that  we  have  the  report  of  the  Committee 
of  Conference,  in  advance,  as  soon  as  they  have  completed  their 
report. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  think  it  would  be  better  to  keep  these  two 
motions  separate. 

Bishop  Cannon's  motion  as  set  forth  above  was  adopted. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  We  can  leave  the  number 
of  copies  to  the  discretion  of  the  Secretary. 

C.  A.  Pollock:  I  move  that  the  Secretaries  also  send  to  the 
members  of  this  Commission  copies  of  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee to  be  appointed. 

This  motion  also  prevailed. 

J,  H.  Reynolds:  I  wish  to  move  that  the  Committee  of  Cpur 
24 


370   Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

ference  be  instructed"  to  meet  as  early  as  possible,  complete  its 
work,  and  prepare  all  papers  necessary  to  its  report,  and  that 
they  include  all  the  work  we  have  done  up  to  date,  in  a  form 
that  can  be  sent  to  all  of  us  in  advance  of  the  meeting,  for  our 
information  and  instruction,  so  that  when  we  do  come  together 
we  will  have  before  us  the  tentative  action  on  all  subjects  that 
we  have  acted  on  in  all  our  meetings  in  the  past. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  think  we  are  in  danger  of  overloading 
the  committee.  I  think  every  member  of  this  Commission  has 
a  record  of  everything  we  have  ever  done,  and  we  would  better 
be  careful  about  overloading  the  committee  with  details. 

D.  G.  Downey:  I  wish  that  Brother  Reynolds  would  modify 
his  motion  somewhat.  I  think  it  is  very  important  that  we  have 
before  us  at  our  next  meeting  a  complete  statement  of  what  has 
been  accomplished.  We  will  not  be  able  to  fit  in  any  new  mat- 
ter unless  we  also  have  before  us  in  plain  form  the  old  matter. 
It  is  quite  possible  that  the  committee  itself  may  feel  like  doing 
that  entire  work;  but  if  not,  it  would  seem  to  me  that  the  Secre- 
taries ought  to  be  instructed  to  give  us  a  complete  statement  of 
the  things  that  have  been  even  tentatively  agreed  to,  so  that  we 
would  have  before  us  when  we  come  together  all  the  action  tenta- 
tively agreed  to,  and  thus  the  whole  plan  could  be  seen  in  its 
entirety.  I  would  like  to  have  it  voted  to  request  the  Secretaries 
to  prepare  a  paper  showing  what  has  been  tentatively  completed 
up  to  the  present  time. 

E.  M.  Randall :  I  would  like  Dr.  Reynolds  to  agree  to  this, 
that  if  there  are  any  reports  of  committees  on  matters  of  organi- 
zation not  acted  on,  those  be  included  in  the  report. 

D.  G.  Downey :  Let  us  keep  to  the  real  action  of  the  Joint 
Commission.  If  the  Secretaries  wish  to  send  us  anything  addi- 
tional, well  and  good. 

E.  M.  Randall :  Is  there  any  matter — I  am  not  sure — relating 
to  organization  of  Regional  Conferences  or  Judicial  Conferences 
or  any  of  those  things,  that  we  have  not  acted  upon  tentatively? 

D.  G.  Downey :  It  does  not  matter  whether  there  is  or  not. 

E.  M.  Randall:  If  there  is,  and  we  do  not  have  it  before  us, 
that  will  have  to  be  done  over  again  by  a  committee. 

Edgar  Blake :  The  motion  as  made  assumes  that  the  Secre- 
taries of  the  Joint  Commission  will  be  members  of  this  Com- 
mittee of  Conference.  As  I  understand  it,  the  thing  that  you 
are  striving  for  is  this,  you  want  to  know  what,  the  Joint  Com- 
mittee has  proposed. 

Alex.  Simpson,  Jr. :  That  resolution  has  been  passed.  We  are 
now  considering  what  will  be  done  in  the  future. 

The  motion  was  adopted. 

D.  G.  Downey :  I  would  like  to  make  an  innocent  inquiry  of 
the  Secretary.    What  has  become  of  the  stenographic  notes  of 


Cleveland  Meeting 


37i 


the  St.  Louis  meeting,  which  we  were  to  have  and  which  we  need 
to  complete  our  reports?  I  have  heard  various  rumors,  but  I 
would  like  an  official  communication  from  the  Secretary  as  to 
the  status  of  the  St.  Louis  minutes. 

F.  M.  Thomas:  The  stenographer  for  the  St.  Louis  meeting 
is  considered  as  perhaps  the  best  stenographer  in  the  South,  and 
has  a  very  large  office.  At  the  beginning  of  the  war  his  men 
were  drafted  for  service,  and  he  himself  was  requisitioned  by 
the  government  for  certain  service  on  draft  boards,  so  that  he 
was  greatly  delayed  in  preparing  the  report.  I  much  regret  the 
matter,  and  have  been  unceasingly  laboring  to  get  the  master 
completed.  The  proceedings  are  now  in  the  press,  and  will  be 
in  hand  shortly. 

D.  G.  Downey :  I  move  now  that  the  two  Secretaries  be  au- 
thorized to  prepare  and  have  printed  the  minutes  and  steno- 
graphic report  of  this  session,  and  include  in  them,  of  course, 
these  papers. 

Bishop  Cannon :  May  I  call  Dr.  Thomas's  attention  to  the  fact 
that  our  General  Conference  ordered,  in  the  adoption  of  its  re- 
port, that  these  stenographic  reports  should  be  published  and 
should  be  on  sale  for  our  membership;  and  if  they  did  not  pay 
expenses  of  publication  the  cost  should  be  defrayed  by  the  Pub- 
lishing House,  that  our  people  might  be  thoroughly  informed 
and  have  all  the  stenographic  reports  from  Baltimore  on  down? 

A.  J.  Lamar:  That  action  by  the  General  Conference  was  an 
instruction  that  the  volume  should  be  brought  out  by  the  Pub- 
lishing House.  I  took  up  the  matter  with  the  publishers  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  they  very  cordially  agreed  that 
we  make  it  a  joint  proposition,  with  the  imprint  of  both  Houses 
on  it,  and  divide  the  volumes,  and  then  divide  the  loss.  Now, 
we  found  that  the  proceedings  of  the  four  meetings,  including 
that  at  St.  Louis,  would  make  two  considerable  volumes.  It 
was  not  deemed  advisable  to  bring  it  out  until  we  could  make 
those  two  complete  volumes,  bringing  them  out  so  that  every- 
body would  have  complete  information.  The  Secretary  has 
stated  the  conditions  which  affected  the  stenographer.  He  was 
a  competent  and  faithful  man.  I  did  not  understand  it.  I  began 
writing  to  him  shortly  after  the  St.  Louis  meeting,  asking  him 
for  the  report  of  the  proceedings,  telling  him  that  I  was  holding 
back  the  publication  of  the  whole  proceedings  until  we  got  those 
notes  from  him.  Sometimes  I  got  a  reply;  sometimes  I  did  not 
get  a  reply.  I  packed  my  grip  and  made  a  trip  to  Louisville  and 
had  a  heart-to-heart  talk  with  him  about  it.  Each  time  that  I 
have  heard  from  him  by  mail,  and  when  I  saw  him  personally 
in  his  office,  I  received  the  promise,  "I  will  begin  sending  you 
the  matter  by  next  Monday,  or  Monday  week  at  least."  Dr. 
Thomas  was  conducting  the  same  bombardment  from  another 


372    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

angle,  to  try  to  get  these  minutes.  Finally,  we  got  a  loyal  mem- 
ber of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  who  lives  in 
Louisville,  an  eminent  lawyer,  to  go  around  and  see  if  he  could 
not  influence  the  stenographer. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  In  the  meantime  there 
was  a  back-fire  from  the  banks  of  the  Ohio  in  the  same  direction. 

A.  J.  Lamar :  We  succeeded  in  getting  the  report  from  the 
stenographer  about  three  or  four  weeks  ago.  We  went  immedi- 
ately to  work  upon  it.  It  is  a  difficult  matter  for  us  to  get  out 
the  proof  sheets.  I  never  saw  (except  my  own  speeches!)  such 
disjointed  utterances. 

Bishop  Denny:  I  never  saw  even  the  disjointed  utterances  of 
my  speeches.  I  am  glad  to  hear  that  somebody  has  had  the 
privilege  of  looking  at  the  proof. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  The  man  who  is  trying  to  edit  the  stenographer's 
matter  so  that  it  will  stand  a  chance  of  getting  through  the  print- 
ing department  correctly  comes  down  to  my  office  every  day  with 
one  or  two  or  three  of  those  speeches  and  says,  "Doctor,  I  will 
have  to  ask  you  about  this.    Can  you  make  any  sense  of  this?" 

A  Voice:  Could  you? 

J.  R.  Pepper:  Just  a  matter  of  personal  privilege.  I  desire 
to  lodge  with  the  Commission  now  this  request,  that  they  con- 
sider meeting  at  Lake  Junaluska,  N.  C,  if  they  meet  before 
October. 

Bishop  Denny:  A  question  of  order.  What  has  become  of  my 
motion  that  the  Secretaries  have  the  stenographic  report  of  this 
meeting  printed? 

I.  E.  Robinson :  I  offer  an  amendment,  "And  that  there  be  fur- 
nished to  each  member  who  has  spoken  a  copy  before  publication, 
so  that  he  may  get  the  joints  out  of  the  disjointed  material.0' 

F.  M.  Thomas :  I  would  like  to  ask  a  question.  It  is  a  matter 
of  conscience  with  me.  There  was  one  speech  at  one  session 
sent  out  to  the  speaker,  and  the  speech  returned  bore  so  little 
resemblance  to  the  one  sent  out  that  it  was  a  serious  question 
of  conscience  whether  it  should  be  introduced  or  not. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  understand  that  the  General  Conference 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  took  certain  action 
with  reference  to  the  expense  of  publishing  these  reports.  I  am 
sure  that  whatever  cost  there  is  over  and  above  any  returns  due 
,  to  the  widespread  sale  of  the  document  should  be  borne  by  the 
two  Book  Concerns  and  not  by  one.  I  hope  that  is  the  arrange- 
ment. 

A.  J.  Lamar :  The  thing  we  were  instructed  to  do  was  to  bring 
out  in  bound  form  the  proceedings  of  all  the  meetings.  You 
have  two  things  confused. 

A.  W.  Harris :  Your  instructions  at  the  earlier  meetings  were 
that  the  proofs  be  sent  out  to  the  speakers,  and  that  the  speakers 


Cleveland  Meeting 


373 


have  thirty  days  in  which  to  bring  their  speeches  into  shape.  As 
a  practical  matter,  thirty  days  is  too  long.  If  you  leave  it  thirty1 
days,  you  will  find  that  some  men  never  see  their  speeches.  I 
think  that  ten  days  is  ample  time.  I  think  you  ought  to  shorten 
the  time.  If  a  man  has  a  long  time,  he  is  apt  to  neglect  the  mat- 
ter. The  average  man,  if  he  has  thirty  days,  will  wait  until 
twenty  are  gone  before  he  begins.  Some  good  friends  took  sixty 
days. 

Bishop  Denny:  Mr.  Chairman,  the  only  proof  that  has  been 
sent  me,  or  typewritten  matter  of  any  kind,  was  sent  by  Dr. 
Thomas,  consisting  of  two  or  three  little  remarks  that  I  made 
in  connection  with  presiding  over  the  Commission.  I  have  never 
had  in  my  hands,  from  the  beginning  of  our  meeting  at  Chatta- 
nooga on,  prior  to  publication,  anything  like  any  statements  that 
I  have  made.  I  have  called  attention  to  that  once  or  twice.  Dr. 
Harris  thinks  that  if  a  man  cannot  get  out  his  material  in  thirty 
days  he  will  not  be  likely  to  get  it  out  at  all.  Some  of  us  are 
not  privileged  to  get  home  once  in  thirty  days.  We  are  away 
from  home  twice  thirty  days  continuously.  Our  mail  is  not 
always  sent  to  us.  Of  course,  I  cannot  ask  that  a  rule  be  made 
that  is  applicable  only  to  a  few  members  of  the  Commission;  but 
I  call  attention  to  this,  that  the  duties  of  some  of  us  keep  us 
away  from  home  for  a  long  time. 

Bishop  Hamilton:  I  understand  that  in  the  preparation  of 
these  two  volumes,  which  I  suppose  will  include  all  the  speeches 
of  all  the  meetings,  they  will  be  submitted  to  the  speakers. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  I  think  it  would  be  utterly  impracticable  to  go 
back  again.  You  would  delay  your  work  another  year.  It  has 
already  been  delayed  too  long. 

C.  M.  Bishop :  I  would  like  to  know  what  is  before  the  house. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  No  motion  is  before  the 
house. 

Bishop  Denny:  The  motion  that  the  Secretaries  be  instructed 
to  have  prepared  and  printed  the  stenographic  notes  of  this  meet- 
ing and  furnish  a  copy  to  each  speaker  before  publication. 

Ira  E.  Robinson:  If  all  is  to  be  printed,  it  would  be  well  that 
all  the  so-called  junk  be  eliminated,  before  the  volume  is  issued 
with  the  imprint  of  the  Book  Concern. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  It  will  be  impossible,  with  that  arrangement,  to 
get  the  book  out  on  time.  The  trouble  is  common  to  human 
nature.  We  make  a  speech,  whether  it  be  in  General  Confer- 
ence or  in  a  Commission  on  Unification  or  at  a  banquet,  and 
when  we  see  that  speech  in  cold  print  we  say,  "I  could  have  done 
a  great  deal  better  than  that.  I  cannot  have  said  that."  And 
the  consequence  is  we  rewrite.  We  write  for  the  printer  not 
the  speech  we  did  make,  but  the  speech  we  wish  we  had  made. 


374    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

We  will  never  get  through  if  you  rewrite  all  that  was  said,  and 
it  will  not  be  a  record  of  what  was  said. 

F.  M.  Thomas:  The  Secretaries  are  not  wholly  to  blame.  The 
record  shows  that  when  the  proceedings  at  one  meeting  were  to 
be  published  I  said,  "Please  correct  your  speeches  so  that  they 
may  appear  in  the  revised  reprint" ;  and  only  two  men  furnished 
me  with  those  corrections. 

Edgar  Blake :  In  view  of  the  very  grave  importance  of  this 
subject,  I  suggest  whether  it  would  be  well  to  hold  a  special 
session  on  this  matter ! 

D.  G.  Downey's  motion  was  carried. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  now  raise  the  question  as  to  the  time  of  our 
next  meeting  of  the  Joint  Commission.  I  think  that  motion 
offered  by  Judge  Simpson  contemplated  that  the  Joint  Commis- 
sion should  fix  the,  time  of  its  next  meeting.  Let  us  look  at  the 
records.  There  was  a  substitute  for  all  the  motions  before  the 
house,  that  this  committee  adopt  the  suggestion  made  by  Bishop 
Mouzon  on  behalf  of  the  Commission  from  the  Church,  South, 
and  that  an  ad  interim  committee  be  appointed  to  consider  the 
whole  subject  until  such  time  as  we  may  be  called  together  by 
the  Joint  Commission.  That  is  the  suggestion  of  Bishop  Mouzon. 
In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  General  Conference  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South,  has  provided  for  the  calling  of 
a  special  session  of  that  General  Conference,  if  it  shall  be  deemed 
necessary,  it  would  appear  as  though  we  ought  to  set  a  time  at 
which  this  Commission  shall  meet,  in  order  that  its  report  may; 
be  perfected,  if  such  a  report  is  perfected,  at  a  time  that  will 
permit  the  General  Conference  of  the  Church,  South,  if  it  is 
deemed  wise  to  do  so,  to  be  called  in  special  session.  The! 
tendency  thus  far  in  all  our  meetings  has  been  to  delay  and  delay 
and  delay  until  it  was  too  late  to  accomplish  the  thing  we  de- 
sired to  accomplish.  It  seems  to  me  that  if  this  Commission  at 
this  time  will  fix  a  date  for  the  reconvening  of  this  Joint  Com- 
mission, then  your  Committee  of  Conference  will  work  with  that 
date  in  view.  Otherwise,  it  will  work  at  its  convenience,  and 
the  result  will  be  that  its  report  will  come  in  too  late  for  this 
Commission  to  meet  in  time  to  make  possible  the  convening  of 
the  General  Conference  of  the  Church,  South,  in  special  session, 
should  it  be  deemed  desirable  to  do  so.  What  I  suggest  is  that 
the  Joint  Commission  fix  a  time  for  its  next  meeting.  There  is 
another  reason.  If  we  fix  the  time  now,  all  of  us  will  know 
what  time  in  the  future  is  preempted  by  this  meeting.  Other- 
wise we  go  out  to  make  our  engagements,  and  the  result  is  that 
the  business  committee  go  along  and  fix  the  date  for  the  meeting 
of  the  Joint  Commission,  and  it  interferes  with  arrangements 
already  made  and  we  are  embarrassed  thereby.  Therefore,  and 
for  other  reasons,  I  think  we  ought  to  fix  the  date  of  the  next 


Cleveland  Meeting 


375 


meeting  now.   And  I  move  that  we  now  proceed  to  fix  the  date 
of  our  next  meeting. 
This  motion  prevailed. 

Bishop  Cannon:  I  suggest  the  latter  part  of  January. 
Edgar  Blake :  I  wonder  if  we  could  not  get  a  little  earlier  time 
than  that. 

Bishop  Cannon:  Bishop  Moore  has  charge  of  our  work  in 
South  America,  and  I  doubt  whether  he  could  return  before 
Christmas.  We  could  not  meet  during  the  Christmas  holidays. 
And  right  at  the  first  of  January  there  are  differentl  meetings 
held  by  business  men.  And  it  occurred  to  me  that  the  15th  of 
January  was  perhaps  as  early  as  we  could  get  together. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  move  that  the  Joint  Commission  convene  on 
Thursday,  January  15. 

This  date,  January  15,  was  fixed  as  the  time  of  the  next  meeth 
ing  of  the  Joint  Commission. 

C.  M.  Bishop :  I  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Committee 
of  Conference  to  be  appointed,  the  Joint  Committee,  should  be 
appointed  by  the  separate  Commissions  and  report  to  this  body 
before  we  adjourn.  I  therefore  move  that  we  meet  at  once  in 
separate  Commissions  for  the  appointment  of  the  Committee  of 
Conference. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  think  it  very  evident  that  the  Committee 
of  Conference  should  be  appointed,  of  course,  by  the  respective 
Commissions.  But  I  do  not  quite  see  the  necessity  of  reporting 
back  to  the  Joint  Commission  the  names  of  this  committee.  I 
think  if  they  are  reported  to  the  Secretary  they  can  be  made  a 
part  of  the  Secretary's  record  by  common  consent  here. 

Bishop  Cannon:  Ought  they  not  to  be  able  to  meet  to  deter- 
mine their  own  procedure? 

Bishop  McDowell:  I  will  move  that  for  the  purpose  of  en- 
abling the  committee  ordered  this  morning  to  get  together,  the 
first  named  persons  on  each  of  the  sections  of  it  shall  be  au- 
thorized to  call  the  committee  together. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  move  an  amendment  to  that,  that  the  commit- 
tee created  be  instructed  to  meet  in  this  place  at  three  o'clock 
this  afternoon. 

Bishop  Hamilton:  You  did  not  include  in  that  that  it  should 
be  a  separate  committee  from  the  one  we  had,  did  you? 

C.  M.  Bishop:  We  made  no  reference  to  that. 

The  motion  offered  by  Edgar  Blake  prevailed. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  now  move  that  we  refer  the  place  of  meeting 
for  the  Joint  Commission  to  the  Business  and  Executive  Com- 
mittees of  the  two  Commissions. 

This  motion  prevailed. 


376    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

Certain  announcements  were  made,  and  it  was  voted  to  ad- 
journ, subject  to  the  call  already  provided  for. 

Dr.  J.  F.  Goucher  offered  the  closing  prayer,  Bishop  Mouzon 
pronounced  the  benediction,  and  the  Cleveland  session  of  the 
Joint  Commission  came  to  end  at  I  :iy  p.m.,  Thursday,  July  10, 
1919. 


PROCEEDINGS  AT  LOUISVILLE,  KY. 
JANUARY  15-20,  1920 


For  a  List  of  the  Names  and  Addresses  of  the  Members  of 
the  Two  Commissions  See  Pages  258-260 


FIRST  DAY,  THURSDAY,  JANUARY  15,  1920. 


The  Joint  Commission  on  Unification  met  in  the  Fourth  Ave- 
nue Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  Louisville,  Ky.,  for  its 
sixth  meeting,  and  was  called  to  order  by  Bishop  E.  D.  Mouzon 
shortly  after  11  a.m. 

The  hymn,  "I  love  thy  Church,  O  God,"  was  sung,  after  which 
Bishop  Cranston  offered  prayer. 

All  joined  in  repeating  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  Bishop  Mouzon 
read  the  latter  part  of  Matthew  xv.,  beginning  with  verse  13. 

Another  hymn,  "The  Church's  one  foundation,"  was  sung,  and 
prayer  was  offered  by  Mr.  R.  E.  Blackwell. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  We  will  have  the  calling  of 
the  roll. 

The  roll  was  called  and  the  following  were  present:  Bishops 
Earl  Cranston,  W.  F.  McDowell,  F.  D.  Leete,  R.  J.  Cooke, 
Collins  Denny,  E.  D.  Mouzon,  J.  M.  Moore,  James  Cannon,  Jr. 
Ministers :  Edgar  Blake,  R.  E.  Jones,  Albert  J.  Nast,  Frank  NefT, 
Claudius  B.  Spencer,  J.  W.  Van  Cleve,  J.  J.  Wallace,  F.  M.  Thom- 
as, W.  J.  Young,  C.  M.  Bishop,  E.  B.  Chappell,  T.  N.  Ivey,  A.  F. 
Watkins,  A.  J.  Lamar,  Paul  H.  Linn,  J.  E.  Dickey,  A.  W. 
Harris.  Laymen :  C.  W.  Kinne,  Rolla  V.  Watt,  J.  R.  Joy,  C.  A. 
Pollock,  E.  L.  Kidney,  C.  M.  Stuart,  P.  D.  Maddin,  J.  R. 
Pepper,  R.  S.  Hyer,  J.  H.  Reynolds,  R.  E.  Blackwell,  T. 
D.  Samford,  H.  H.  White,  J.  G.  McGowan.  Bishop  Ains- 
worth  was  present  as  alternate  for  Bishop  Candler.  E.  W. 
Hines,  of  Louisville,  was  seated  as  a  substitute.  It  was  an- 
nounced that  letters  had  been  received  stating  that  Rev.  C.  C. 
Selecman  and  Mr.  H.  N.  Snyder  would  arrive  by  night.  A 
letter  from  Judge  Simpson  stated  that  he  would  be  unable  to 
attend  the  meeting  because  court  was  sitting  on  reargued  cases 
of  so  great  importance  that  they  must  be  argued  before  the  full 
bench. 

Bishop  Cranston :  Mr.  Chairman  and  brethren,  I  would  not 
think  of  calling  to  your  attention  at  this  moment  any  subject 
as  to  which  I  had  reason  to  believe  there  would  be  the  slightest 
difference  of  opinion.  We  must  all  have  been  greatly  concerned 
as  to  the  attitude  of  our  nation  toward  those  with  whom  we 
were  so  recently  associated  in  war  as  indicated  by  the  situation 
in  Washington.  My  own  feeling  is,  and  I  believe  it  to  be  the 
feeling  of  the  very  large  majority  of  the  Christian  Church,  that 
the  objects  of  the  war  as  conceived  by  the  American  people  are 
really  in  jeopardy.  To-day  is  a  very  significant  day  in  Wash- 
ington.   Two  days  ago  the  representatives  of  quite  a  number  of 


380     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

associations  in  the  country,  including  the  Federal  Council  of 
Churches,  and  headed  by  Bishop  McDowell,  made  representa- 
tions that  should  have  had  very  wholesome  effect  upon  the  minds 
of  some  leaders.  We  are  representing  here  an  object — the  bring- 
ing together  of  our  own  communions  for  more  effective  work  for 
God — which  should  make  our  appeal  of  some  value  at  this  junc- 
ture. I  wish,  with  your  permission,  to  read  a  brief  paper  which 
expresses  what  I  believe  to  be  the  thought  of  every  one  of  us. 
And  it  is  the  more  relevant  and  timely  because  of  the  fact  that 
our  Churches  have  planned  such  large  investments  of  money 
in  the  moral  and  spiritual  reconstruction  of  the  disturbed  world 
— a  work  which  will  be  much  hindered,  unless  our  country  shall 
agree  with  other  nations  for  the  adjustment  of  international 
troubles  by  arbitration. 

(Inasmuch  as  this  paper  was  later  adopted  with  only  trifling 
change,  it  is  not  inserted  here;  but  the  form  in  which  it  was 
finally  adopted  is  found  in  the  afternoon  proceedings.) 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  What  will  you  do  with  that 
paper? 

It  was  moved  and  seconded  that  the  paper  be  adopted  without 
reference. 

P.  D.  Maddin :  I  move  that  the  paper  be  telegraphed  to  the 
proper  parties  at  Washington. 

Bishop  Denny  :  I  have  long  ago  gone  on  record  as  a  citizen  in  fa- 
vor of  a  League  of  Nations.  I  have  done  what  seemed  to  be  pos- 
sible for  me  in  connection  with  the  League  of  Nations.  With  the 
thought  of  the  paper  I  am  personally  heartily  in  sympathy;  and 
yet  I  am  not  sure  that  it  is  a  wise  thing  for  us,  met  here  for  one 
single  purpose,  to  go  outside  of  that,  to  pass  a  paper  on  a  point 
so  vital  even  as  this  point  which  is  brought  to  our  attention.  While 
it  is  true  that  we  are  representatives  of  two  Churches,  we  are  rep- 
resentatives of  those  two  Churches  for  a  specific  purpose,  and  not 
general  representatives  for  any  purpose.  There  are  the  number 
of  millions  of  members  to  which  Bishop  Cranston  has  referred; 
but  we  are  not  authorized  to  speak  on  this  question  in  the  name 
of  those  millions.  I  should  very  much  like,  in  the  first  place, 
to  see  the  paper  referred  to  a  committee;  and  indeed  I  should 
very  much  like  that,  preferably  to  the  paper's  being  adopted  by 
us  in  our  capacity  as  commissioners  met  to  effect  a  union  be- 
tween two  branches  of  Methodism,  we  should  sign  that  paper  as 
individuals.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  sign  anv  reasonable  paper 
as  an  individual  and  send  it  on.  But  I  cannot  accept  the  author- 
ity of  this  Commission,  in  its  capacity  as  representatives  of  the 
Church  for  a  designated  purpose,  to  speak  for  the  Church  on  a 
matter  even  so  vital  as  this.  And  I  believe  we  lessen  our  influ- 
ence, brethren,  by  steps  of  this  kind.  It  is  entirely  aside  from 
the  purpose  for  which  we  are  met.    I  am  very  well  aware  that 


Louisville  Meeting 


381 


I  have  touched  upon  a  very  delicate  matter,  and  that  I  am  quite 
likely,  almost  certainly,  to  be  misunderstood.  But  I  cannot  re- 
main silent,  with  the  convictions  that  I  have  as  to  the  propriety 
of  action  such  as  this.   I  must  speak,  if  I  speak  alone. 

Bishop  Cranston:  I  do  not  suppose  it  is  necessary  for  me  to 
say  anything  in  reply  to  Bishop  Denny.  But  this  is  the  only 
occasion  within  the  time  which  may  be  reasonably  expected  to 
be  given  for  decision,  and  this  is  the  only  live  body  that  can 
speak  for  either  of  our  Churches,  which  is  in  session  or  likely  to 
be  in  session.  And  what  our  Churches  have  in  other  ways  ex- 
pressed, unanimously  expressed  as  far  as  I  know,  we  ought 
not  to  be  disturbed  in  reiterating.  I  do  not  know  that  the  refer- 
ence to  our  representing  so  many  millions  is  a  vital  matter. 
That  simply  tells  who  we  are. 

Bishop  Cannon :  We  prefer  whatever  is  adopted  to  be  unani- 
mous action.  I  was  wondering  whether  the  paper  could  be  mod- 
ified in  various  points  so  as  to  meet  the  suggestions  of  Bishop 
Denny,  saying,  "We,  ministers  and  laymen  of  the  Churches," 
not  as  calling  ourselves  representatives,  but  saying,  "ministers 
and  laymen  met  together  at  Louisville  to  consider  the  question 
of  unification  of  the  Churches";  so  that  the  representative  char- 
acter would  not  appear,  but  that  we  sign  it  simply  as  ministers 
and  laymen  of  our  Churches. 

Bishop  Cranston :  Time  is  a  good  deal  of  an  object.  I  do  not 
suppose  there  will  be  a  vote  to-day,  but  there  may  be.  I  am  per- 
fectly willing  to  have  the  paper  referred  to  a  committee;  and  if 
we  can  get  the  matter  on  the  wire  by  one  o'clock  I  shall  be 
satisfied. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  kIo  not  think  there  is  the  slightest  possibility 
of  their  voting  to-day,  because  the  Democratic  caucus  is  to  be 
held  to-day  to  decide  the  leadership  of  the  minority. 

J.  E.  Dickey :  Bishop  Denny  has  perfectly  expressed  my  view. 
This  paper  takes  a  stand  with  the  mild  reservationists  on  this 
question.  It  is  a  political  question,  and  people  are  widely  sepa- 
rate in  their  views.  I  do  not  think  that  as  commissioners  of 
these  Churches  we  ought  to  telegraph  a  message  which  looks 
like  backing  any  political  view.  The  spirit  of  what  Bishop  Cran- 
ston has  said  is  beautiful.  But  I  think  it  would  be  a  grave  error 
for  us  to  telegraph  anything  of  this  sort. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  move  that  the  paper  be  referred  to  a  special 
committee  of  five,  with  instructions  to  report  at  the  beginning 
of  the  afternoon. 

This  motion  was  seconded  and  prevailed. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  What  business  will  you 
take  up  now? 

F.  M.  Thomas:  Dr.  Thompson,  the  presiding  elder  of  the 
Louisville  District  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 


382     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

is  here  to  speak  briefly  to  us,  and  Dr.  Robinson,  the  pastor  of 
this  Church. 

Dr.  S.  J.  Thompson :  We  do  not  want  you  to  be  in  a  hurry. 
We  want  you  to  stay  here  as  long  as  you  can.   We  want  you  to 
be  with  us  over  Sunday.    We  can  hardly  express  to  you  how 
happy  we  are  to  have  you  here.    I  speak  for  all  our  Methodist 
Churches,  for  we  have  both  the  denominations  in  our  city.  So 
far  as  I  know,  we  have  always  gotten  along  well.    I  do  not 
know  that  we  will  do  any  more  for  Methodism  if  you  unite  us 
than  we  are  trying  to  do  now;  though  we  are  happy  if  it  may 
be  done.    But  we  have  worked  together  and  had  our  meetings 
together  and  our  Churches  are  harmonious.    You  all  look  alike 
to  us  to-day — all  Methodists.    We  are  delighted  to  have  you 
here.    This  is  the  historic  city  where  the  Southern  Methodist 
Church  was  organized  in  1845.    The  Commissioners  met  in  the 
Fourth  Street  Church  and  organized  the  Church.    That  was 
seventy-five  years  ago.    If  we  may  be  reunited  at  this  meeting, 
it  will  be  a  great  historic  event.    We  are  the  second  largest 
Protestant  denomination.    Baptists  are  ahead  of  us.    They  have 
in  Louisville  the  largest  theological  seminary  in  the  world.  The 
Presbyterians  also  have  a  seminary  here.   Not  only  are  the  Meth- 
odists glad  to  have  you  here,  but  all  the  denominations  are  glad. 
The  dean  of  Christ  Church  said  to  me :  "I  would  like  so  much 
to  come  out  and  hear  the  discussion  if  they  will  allow  me  to 
come.    I  am  very  much  interested  in  the  great  question  before 
the  Methodist  Church."   W7e  have  arranged  to  have  you  preach 
in  our  churches  on  Sunday.   We  want  you  not  to  get  in  a  hurry. 
Dr.  Robinson  has  something  to  tell  you  about  our  meeting  here. 
We  want  to  have  a  banquet  here  at  the  church.    We  will  give 
you  an  old-fashioned  Kentucky  welcome.    Our  Methodism  is 
not  as  large  in  Kentucky  as  in  some  other  States.    There  are 
some  reasons  for  that.    The  first  is  that  our  forefathers,  like 
Bishop  Asbury,  taught  us  a  theory  of  holiness  that  made  us  op- 
posed to  whisky — the  making,  drinking,  and  selling  of  whisky. 
You  know  Kentucky  was  famous  for  that.    Some  of  the  other 
denominations  said  it  was  not  wrong  to  make  whisky ;  that  God 
put  it  in  the  corn  and  it  was  not  wrong  to  bring  it  out  of  there. 
So  they  got  a  great  many  people;  for  our  fathers  and  grand- 
fathers had  distilleries  and  did  not  think  it  wrong  to  make  whis- 
ky.   The  Methodist  view  of  holiness  keeps  us  out  of  it,  there- 
fore many  of  our  well-to-do  people  went  to  the  Baptist  Church. 
I  heard  one  of  our  good  Southern  Baptist  men  say  that  the 
Southern  Baptists  were  immoral,  but  they  were  all  right.    I  am 
glad  to  tell  you  that  we  are  second  to  the  Baptists  in  this  city 
of  Louisville.    We  are  on  the  border  here.    We  think  we  have 
one  of  the  most  beautiful  cities  in  the  world,  with  beautiful  parks 


Louisville  Meeting  383 

and  driveways.  We  want  you  to  see  Louisville  and  to  be  at 
home. 

Dr.  Leonidas  Robinson:  We  have  arranged  for  a  six-o'clock 
dinner  in  our  social  hall  to-morrow  evening  in  your  honor,  for 
the  primary  purpose  of  having  our  people  meet  you.  I  am  at 
your  service  to  make  you  very  comfortable  and  to  do  anything 
for  you  within  the  bounds  of  reason  or  morality. 

H.  H.  White :  I  believe  our  meetings  are  to  be  open  to  the 
Church  press.  Therefore,  inasmuch  as  the  meetings  are  not 
purely  executive,  and  inasmuch  as  Dr.  Robinson  is  our  enter- 
tainer, I  suggest  that  the  privilege  of  attendance  here  be  granted 
him. 

Bishop  Moore :  I  am  favorable  to  this ;  but  we  have  some 
churches  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  this  city,  and 
it  may  be  that  their  representatives  would  like  to  be  here.  If 
we  make  an  invitation  large  enough  to  include  the  presiding 
elder,  and  the  pastor  of  this  Church,  it  seems  to  me  we  ought 
to  make  it  broad  enough  to  include  the  representatives  of  the 
other  Church  also. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  Brethren,  I  do  not  see  why  we  should  keep  any- 
body out.  I  think  it  would  be  better  for  us  to  invite  all  the  min- 
isters of  the  two  denominations  in  this  city  to  attend. 

This  action  was  taken. 

The  committee  to  whom  Bishop  Cranston's  paper  was  referred 
was  announced:  Bishop  Cranston,  Bishop  Denny,  Edgar  Blake, 
Mr.  Hyer,  Mr.  Joy. 

Following  remarks  by  Bishop  Moore  and  Dr.  Thomas,  the 
hours  of  meeting  and  adjournment  were  fixed  as  follows:  For 
the  morning,  9  to  12:30;  for  the  afternoon,  2:30  to  5.  (After 
a  day  or  two,  the  hour  for  meeting  in  the  morning  was  changed 
to  9:30.) 

Edgar  Blake :  I  move  that  we  express  our  appreciation  to  Dr. 
Robinson  and  to  the  people  of  the  Church  for  arranging  for  the 
proposed  dinner  to-morrow  evening,  and  that  we  accept  the  invi- 
tation thus  given  to  us. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Are  you  ready  to  hear  from 
your  ad  interim  committee? 

E.  B.  Chappell :  Many  of  us  have  not  before  us  the  copies  of 
that  report. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  Secretary  has  a  supply 
on  the  table. 

Bishop  McDowell:  I  suggest  that  the  Chairman  of  the  ad 
interim  committee  which  met  at  Richmond  now  present  the  re- 
sults of  the  meeting  held  there,  and  at  the  conclusion  of  that 
presentation  I  think  I  shall  move  that,  if  it  is  the  desire  of  the 
Commissions,  they  convene  this  afternoon,  first  in  separate  ses- 
sions, for  the  consideration  of  this  particular  matter,  which  has 


384     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

not  been  before  them  at  all.    I  move  now,  however,  simply  that 
we  hear  the  report  from  the  ad  interim  committee. 
This  motion  prevailed. 

Bishop  Ainsworth:  As  the  report  of  the  committee  is  about 
to  be  presented,  we  would  be  glad  to  know  from  the  Chairman 
of  the  committee  the  exact  status  of  the  report  as  it  comes  from 
the  hands  of  the  committee. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  supposed  he  would  make  that  clear. 

Bishop  Ainsworth :  Does  it  come  as  the  adoption  of  the  com- 
mittee, or  is  it  simply  the  result  of  their  deliberations  passed  up 
for  our  consideration?  I  would  like  to  know  whether  that  re- 
port comes  as  an  adoption  of  the  committee.  Does  it  come  with 
their  recommendation  that  it  be  adopted  here? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  I  am  quite  sure  that  the 
Chairman  of  the  committee  will  give  us  that  information. 

Bishop  Denny :  In  making  a  study  of  this  report  I  have  not 
understood  whether  it  is  a  substitute  for  all  that  has  been  before 
us  hitherto,  or  is  intended  to  be  simply  supplementary.  It  will 
help  me  if  the  Chairman  will  make  that  point  clear. 

Bishop  Cannon :  Mr.  Chairman,  your  ad  interim  committee 
met  in  the  city  of  Richmond  on  November  4,  and  continued  in 
session  about  three  and  one-half  days.  We  had  an  exceedingly 
frank  and  brotherly  discussion  of  the  matters  before  us;  and 
after  several  sessions  a  subcommittee  of  four  was  appointed  to 
draft  for  the  full  committee  a  paper  on  the  various  questions. 
That  committee  drafted  this  paper,  presented  it  to  the  full  com- 
mittee on  Monday  morning,  and  the  committee  then  adopted 
a  motion  which  I  will  ask  the  Secretary  of  the  committee,  Dr. 
Blake,  to  read  presently.  That  motion  was  sent  to  every  mem- 
ber of  this  Commission  along  with  the  paper,  the  letter  which 
Dr.  Blake  sent,  which  contained  the  motion  adopted  by  the 
ad  interim  committee.  I  do  not  know  that  I  feel  authorized,  as 
one  member  of  the  committee,  or  as  the  Chairman,  to  go  any 
word  beyond  that  motion ;  for  that  motion  does  not  state  whether 
the  members  of  this  committee  unanimously  recommended  the 
adoption  of  this  paper  by  the  full  committee.  It  states  that  "this 
is  submitted  to  the  full  Commission  as  the  best  solution  that 
your  subcommittee  was  able  to  reach  on  the  various  questions 
before  us."  It  was  distinctly  agreed  that  any  member  of  the 
ad  interim  committee  would  be  perfectly  free  to  suggest  any 
amendment  or  alteration  in  the  report  as  it  is  sent  down.  In 
the  debate  here  the  fact  that  it  was  transmitted  unanimously 
would  not  bind  any  member  of  the  ad  interim  committee  in  his 
action  in  the  full  Commission.  I  really  do  not  think  I  am  au- 
thorized to  go  beyond  that.  I  will  ask  Dr.  Blake  to  present  the 
report  and  that  motion.  So  far  as  Bishop  Denny's  question  is 
concerned,  I  should  say  for  myself  that  we  present  this — or  let 


Louisville  Meeting 


38s 


me  say  this :  it  was  moved  by  Judge  Simpson  as  a  substitute  for 
all  motions  before  the  house  that  the  Joint  Commission  adopt  the 
amendment  made  by  Bishop  Mouzon  on  behalf  of  the  Southern 
Commission.  Our  understanding  was  that  we  had  for  our  con- 
sideration not  only  the  two  papers  presented  at  Cleveland,  but 
all  the  previous  action  of  the  Commission,  the  reports  and  the 
statements  made;  and  that  this  was  to  be  our  report  as  to  the 
best  solution;  not  as  a  substitute,  but  as  a  paper  presented  for 
the  action  of  this  committee.  This  is  how  I  understand  it,  that 
it  covers  the  whole  matter. 

Bishop  Denny:  The  question  in  my  mind  had  no  reference  to 
the  ad  interim  committee,  but  solely  whether  we  were  now  deal- 
ing only  with  this.  Is  this  the  complete  statement  and  report, 
calling  for  no  reference  to  anything  that  has  been  done  hereto- 
fore? 

Bishop  Cannon:  So  far  as  this  committee  is  concerned,  yes. 
I  will  ask  Dr.  Blake  to  make  a  more  detailed  report. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  have  a  summarized  report  of  the  meeting, 
which  I  will  read.  And  then,  if  you  desire,  I  will  present  the 
more  detailed  minutes,  that  you  may  see  everything  that  was 
before  Us. 

The  Joint  Committee  of  Reference  met  upon  adjournment  of  the 
Joint  Commission  in  Cleveland  on  July  10  and  organized  by  the  election 
of  Bishop  Cannon  as  Chairman  and  Dr.  Blake  as  Secretary.  It  was 
voted  to  meet  in  Richmond  November  3.  For  the  convenience  of  mem- 
bers the  date  was  postponed,  later,  to  November  4.  The  Joint  Committee 
of  Reference  met  November  4.  After  numerous  sessions  it  adjourned 
on  Friday  morning,  November  7.  After  discussion  of  matters  referred 
to  the  joint  committee,  the  appointment  of  a  subcommittee  of  four  was 
authorized,  to  which  were  committed  for  restatement  all  matters.  The 
subcommittee  brought  in  a  report  in  which  the  following  action  was 
taken:  Voted  that  we  transmit  the  paper  to  the  Joint  Commission  with 
the  statement  that  represents  our  best  judgment  at  this  time  as  the  best 
solution  of  the  matters  referred  to  us  that  we  have  been  able  to  arrive 
at.  And  that  a  copy  be  furnished  to  each  member  of  the  Joint  Com- 
mission with  the  statement  that  in  view  of  the  character  of  the  document 
the  committee  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  give  the  paper  to  the  Church  press, 
and  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  paper  ought  not  to  be  published  without 
action  by  the  Joint  Commission. 

In  accord  with  the  vote,  copies  were  mailed  to  the  Commission. 
This  is  a  summarization  of  the  doings  of  the  committee.  If 
you  desire  a  more  detailed  statement  of  the  processes  by  which 
we  arrived  at  that  conclusion,  I  can  read  from  the  minutes  of 
the  meeting. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  Chair  is  of  the  opinion 
that  the  Commission  does  not  desire  that. 

Edgar  Blake :  Then  we  present  as  our  report  this  document 
which  you  have  received  through  the  mails,  and  which  is  a  sub- 
stitute for  what  was  previously  before  us. 

25 


386     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Do  you  desire  to  have  this 
paper  read? 

E.  B.  Chappell :  I  think  it  had  better  be  read,  that  we  may  have 
opportunity  to  ask  questions. 

Bishop  Moore :  I  trust  that  it  will  be  read  and  become  a  part 
of  our  proceedings. 

Bishop  McDowell:  I  think  Bishop  Moore  had  in  mind  one 
thing  and  Dr.  Chappell  another  thing.  I  think  the  latter  had  in 
mind  the  reading  of  this  document.  I  think  Bishop  Moore  had 
in  mind  the  reading  of  the  matter  to  which  Dr.  Blake  referred, 
as  describing  the  preliminary  steps  by  which  this  document  was 
arrived  at. 

Bishop  Moore :  I  have  no  desire  to  hear  these  articles  of  agree- 
ment read.  I  have  read  them  two  or  three  times  and  then  re- 
read them.  What  I  desire  is  this,  the  full  knowledge  of  what 
took  place  in  Richmond,  if  we  have  it  not  already.  If  there  is 
anything  in  the  minutes  that  we  have  not  received  through  this 
summary  that  has  been  presented,  I  would  desire  much  that  these 
minutes  be  read,  so  that  we  may  know  altogether  what  took  place 
and  what  the  results  reached  are. 

C.  M.  Bishop :  I  think  the  minutes  of  the  subcommittee  are 
not  in  any  wise  an  important  part  of  the  report  of  the  committee 
to  the  original  body,  and  the  summary  is  exactly  what  we  want 
for  the  saving  of  time,  and  indeed  for  clearness.  This  summary 
seems  to  be  agreed  to  by  the  subcommittee  itself.  It  states  the 
facts  before  us.  And  to  go  into  the  minute  details  of  this  meet- 
ing at  Richmond  would  lose  the  time  which  we  hoped  to  save 
by  committing  the  matter  to  a  subcommittee.  I  hope  we  will 
not  call  for  the  reading  of  the  minutes. 

P.  H.  Linn :  As  one  of  the  members  of  the  subcommittee,  I 
have  been  here  for  about  thirty-six  hours  to  go  over  this  paper 
before  its  final  presentation.  I  think  that  there  are  several  slight 
omissions  here,  probably  occurring  through  oversight  in  copying 
by  the  stenographer  or  some  one  else.  I  think  the  Commission 
would  save  much  time  by  allowing  us  to  meet  for  the  next  twen- 
ty minutes  by  ourselves.  They  are  slight  omissions — just  the 
leaving  out  of  a  word  or  two — but  it  materially  changes,  to  my 
mind  and  according  to  my  memory,  the  sense  of  the  document. 
I  move  to  adjourn,  to  give  the  subcommittee  a  few  minutes  in 
which  to  perfect  the  minutes  concerning  the  verbiage  of  this 
report. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  am  assured  by  Bishop  Cannon  that  there 
is  a  very  considerable  desire  on  the  part  of  the  Commissioners 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  for  a  separate  ses- 
sion, to  consider  this  report  before  considering  it  in  the  Joint 
Commission.  I  have  not  conferred  with  Bishop  Cranston  to-day, 
but  I  think  that  same  desire  exists  in  our  own  Commission.  I 


Louisville  Meeting 


387 


will  move  that  the  Commissions  meet  separately  in  the  afternoon 
session.   I  suppose  they  can  both  meet  in  this  church. 

Bishop  Moore :  Why  not  meet  here,  and  then  separate  after 
religious  exercises? 

A  Commissioner:  I  would  like  to  meet  here  long  enough  to 
hear  the  report  of  the  committee  on  the  subject  of  the  communi- 
cation to  Washington. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  move  that  when  we  adjourn  it  shall  be 
to  meet  at  2:30  o'clock  with  the  expectation  of  separating  after 
such  matters  as  we  shall  first  consider  together,  in  order  that 
each  Commission  may  consider  the  report  for  itself. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  have  no  doubt  the  Commission  will  take  the 
action  proposed  by  the  motion  of  Bishop  McDowell.  But  before 
that  I  would  like  to  put  myself  on  record  as  opposed  to  it,  for 
various  reasons.  My  reason  is  based  largely  upon  the  experi- 
ences which  we  have  had  in  the  past  in  these  separate  sessions. 
They  have  been  consumers  of  time  without  helping  us  to  reach 
any  very  definite  conclusions  or  get  anywhere.  One  of  the  diffi- 
culties of  these  separate  Commissions  is  that  you  brethren  of  the 
Church,  South,  meet  and  discuss  these  propositions  solely  from 
the  point  of  view  of  your  people  and  your  interests,  and  you 
do  not  have  the  point  of  view  or  the  approach  of  our  people  and 
our  interests.  In  other  words,  you  are  bound  to  take  a  one- 
sided view  of  the  case.  That  never  helps  to  a  satisfactory  con- 
clusion. That  is  exactly  the  case  with  reference  to  our  Commis- 
sion. We  meet  and  discuss  the  proposition  from  our  point  of 
view.  If  we  could  meet  and  discuss  these  several  propositions 
with  you,  we  having  the  benefit  of  such  light  as  you  can  throw 
on  the  subject,  very  often  it  would  change  our  views.  I  do  not 
believe  we  ought  to  meet  in  separate  sessions  and  reach  hard  and 
fast  conclusions  from  the  point  of  view  of  our  own  particular 
Church,  and  then,  having  reached  those  conclusions,  come  to- 
gether again  to  try  somehow  to  find  a  compromise.  There  is 
nothing  new  here  to  speak  of.  I  feel  that  we  would  better  sim- 
ply settle  down  here  as  brethren,  forgetting  that  we  represent 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  and  feeling  rather  that  we  represent  the  larger 
interests  of  the  people  of  God,  and  that  we  want  to  find  the  so- 
lution that  will  advance  the  kingdom  of  God.  I  believe  that  we 
shall  make  for  progress  and  speed  if  we  just  keep  out  of  these 
separate  sessions  at  the  present  time,  and  work  on  the  thing 
together.  I  am  very  sure  we  would  not  have  gotten  together  as 
a  committee  at  Richmond  if  we  had  followed  the  policy  of  sep- 
arate sessions  and  reaching  conclusions  in  advance.  I  hope  that 
when  we  come  together  this  afternoon,  it  will  not  be  to  separate 
immediately,  but  to  settle  down  here  together  and  see  if  we  can 
find  an  adjustment  of  these  questions  before  us. 


388     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

Bishop  Cannon:  Did  we  not  at  Richmond  have  two  or  three 
separate  sessions  of  our  committees? 

Edgar  Blake :  Yes.  And  we  never  made  a  particle  of  progress 
in  them,  I  think. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  think  we  did. 

Edgar  Blake :  When  this  subcommittee  of  four  to  which  this 
whole  matter  was  finally  committed  went  out,  they  did  not  meet 
as  separate  sessions  of  the  committee.  The  four  members  of  the 
committee  sat  down  together,  put  their  feet  under  the  same  table, 
and  wrestled  with  the  thing  as  brethren,  and  we  got  together. 

Bishop  Cranston :  Doubtless,  from  the  standpoint  of  correct 
psychology,  Dr.  Blake  is  absolutely  right.  There  is  no  objection 
whatever  to  our  meeting  in  separate  Commissions,  in  the  thing 
itself.  And  yet,  there  is  somehow  an  American  tendency  to 
make  a  party  caucus  out  of  a  separate  meeting  called  under  such 
circumstances.  While  we  are  all  together  and  under  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Spirit  of  God,  as  we  humbly  trust,  and  interchang- 
ing our  views  in  the  spirit  of  good  fellowship  and  representing 
both  sides,  we  are  gaining  headway.  That  is  the  way  I  have 
become  persuaded  of  the  reasonableness  of  some  demands  of 
my  brethren  from  the  South.  I  would  like  them  to  have  the 
same  chance  to  be  persuaded  of  the  reasonableness  of  our  views. 
After  such  a  discussion  as  that,  in  which  we  share  all  together 
with  entire  freedom,  we  are  better  served  by  the  work  of  a  com- 
mittee. After  an  important  report,  it  is  entirely  within  reason 
that  somebody  in  one  Commission  or  the  other  may  desire  to 
go  apart  for  consideration.  Ultimately  there  is  the  vote  of  the 
two  Commissions  as  units,  and  any  report  adopted  will  require 
anyway  the  concurrent  vote  of  the  two.  We  will  get  on  better 
if  we  sit  as  one  good  Methodist  family  in  just  as  near  a  love  feast 
relation  as  possible.  To  see  a  picture  from  as  nearly  as  possible 
the  same  angle  as  the  friend  who  is  with  us  is  to  enjoy  the  pic- 
ture better.  I  do  not  want  all  the  side  lights  on  any  subject  to 
come  into  my  mind  from  one  side  only. 

Bishop  Moore :  I  move  that  the  matter  that  we  are  now  dis- 
cussing be  committed  to  the  Committee  on  Procedure.  We  have 
a  committee  that  is  supposed  to  direct  us  in  the  procedure  we 
take.  I  think  that  by  referring  this  to  this  committee  we  can 
determine  the  course  of  action  we  should  take.  So  I  move  it  be 
referred  to  this  Committee  on  Procedure. 

Mr.  Blackwell :  It  would  have  to  come  back  to  us,  so  we 
might  as  well  take  it  up  now.  I  never  liked  love  feasts.  I  al- 
ways resented  it  when  they  were  called.  I  always  went  to  them 
with  the  greatest  reluctance.  But  I  never  came  away  from  one 
without  feeling  that  I  had  been  benefited.  So  I  believe  we  had 
better  have  our  love  feast  before  we  go  further. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  cannot  agree  with  Dr.  Blake  about  the  Rich- 


Louisville  Meeting 


389 


mond  meeting.  I  believe  we  would  not  have  gotten  anywhere 
if  we  had  not  had  separate  meetings.  We  had  very  unusual  sep- 
arate meetings.  I  would  not  have  felt  able  to  approve  certain 
things  if  I  had  not  thoroughly  understood  the  minds  of  the  other 
brethren  of  my  committee.  I  agree  now  that  we  ought  to  have 
these  meetings  at  some  time.  I  feel  that  we  would  have  saved 
time  if  we  had  had  them  at  first  and  the  members  of  each  Com- 
mission very  frankly  and  quickly  asked  the  reasons  that  influ- 
enced the  seven  members  from  our  Commission  to  carry  certain 
things.  I  simply  doubt  whether  we  would  have  got  as  frank 
discussions  here  as  in  our  separate  meetings ;  but  it  does  not  par- 
ticularly matter  to  me  which  way  we  do. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  Our  committee  want  forty  minutes  on  such  a 
matter.   I  move  that  we  do  now  adjourn  to  2  130  o'clock. 

The  motion  was  seconded,  and  it  was  voted  to  adjourn. 

Dr.  Neff  was  substituted  for  Dr.  Blake,  and  Dr.  Wallace  for 
Dr.  Joy,  on  the  committee  to  which  Bishop  Cranston's  paper  was 
referred.  The  session  closed  at  12:21  p.m.,  the  benediction  be- 
ing pronounced  by  Dr.  Linn. 

Afternoon  Session. 

At  2:38  p.m.,  Bishop  Mouzon  not  having  come  in,  Bishop 
Cranston  called  on  Bishop  Denny  to  conduct  the  devotional  ex- 
ercises. 

The  hymn,  "Lord,  I  am  thine,  entirely  thine,"  was  sung,  after 
which  Bishop  Denny  read  a  part  of  the  seventh  chapter  of  Luke 
and  offered  prayer. 

Secretary  A.  W.  Harris  called  the  roll  and  the  following  were 
present :  Bishops  E.  D.  Mouzon,  Collins  Denny,  J.  M.  Moore, 
James  Cannon,  Jr.,  W.  N.  Ainsworth,  Earl  Cranston,  J.  W.  Ham- 
ilton, W.  F.  McDowell,  F.  D.  Leete,  R.  J.  Cooke.  Ministers:  W. 
J.  Young,  C.  M.  Bishop,  E.  B.  Chappell,  T.  N.  Ivey,  A.  J.  Lamar, 
A.  F.  Watkins,  Paul  H.  Linn,  F.  M.  Thomas,  J.  E.  Dickey,  Edgar 
Blake,  R.  E.  Jones,  Albert  J.  Nast,  Frank  Neff,  C.  B.  Spencer, 
J.  W.  Van  Cleve,  J.  J.  Wallace,  C.  M.  Stuart.  Laymen :  H.  N. 
Snyder,  P.  D.  Maddin,  R.  S.  Hyer,  J.  H.  Reynolds,  R.  E.  Black- 
well,  T.  D.  Samford,  J.  R.  Pepper,  H.  H.  White,  J.  G.  Mc- 
Gowan,  E.  W.  Hines,  A.  W.  Harris,  J.  R.  Joy,  C.  W.  Kinne, 
Rolla  V.  Watt,  E.  L.  Kidney,  C.  A.  Pollock. 

Secretary  F.  M.  Thomas  read  the  minutes  of  the  morning  ses- 
sion, which  were  approved  without  change. 

Bishop  Cranston  took  the.  chair. 

Bishop  Denny:  Bishop  Cranston  has  asked  me  to  present  the 
paper  referred  to  the  Committee  of  Five,  which  I  understand 
comes  back  to  you  as  the  unanimous  action  of  the  committee : 


390     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


We  hold  it  to  be  the  imperative  duty  of  any  assembly  of  Christians  at 
this  critical  juncture  in  the  affairs  of  mankind  both  to  think  and  to  speak 
for  the  peace  of  the  world  and  the  welfare  of  humanity. 

It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  fifty  commissioners  representing  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
which  two  Churches  aggregate  6,000,000  members  and  at  least  12,000,000 
adherents,  and  now  in  negotiation  at  Louisville,  Ky.,  for  the  reunion 
of  these  two  great  bodies,  deem  it  timely  as  Christian  citizens  to  remind 
the  President  and  Senate  of  the  United  States  of  certain  important  con- 
siderations that  are  apparently  being  overlooked  in  the  current  influences 
bearing  on  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  of  Versailles,  especially  that 
aspect  of  it  involving  the  League  of  Nations. 

It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  when  the  United  States  entered  the  war 
there  was  a  distinct  understanding  of  the  objects  sought  to  be  achieved, 
chief  among  which  were  the  protection  and  spread  of  democratic  govern- 
ment and  humane  civilization,  not  only  as  against  autocratic  aggression, 
but  also  against  the  barbarities  of  war  in  the  future,  through  a  League 
of  Nations  binding  its  signatories  to  arbitration  of  international  diffi- 
culties. 

With  loyal  respect  for  the  constitutional  powers  charged  with  the 
negotiation  of  treaties,  we  declare  our  conviction  that  this  widely-pro- 
claimed understanding,  then  and  during  the  peace  conference  at  Paris, 
heralded  to  the  honor  of  the  one  country  that  entertained  no  expectation 
of  profit  or  even  indemnity,  was,  as  between  our  government  and  people, 
of  the  nature  of  a  sacred  contract;  that  the  war  ideals  thus  expressed 
were  sanctioned  and  enthusiastically  supported  by  the  Christian  Churches 
as  consonant  with  the  Christian  conception  of  the  unity  and  brotherhood 
relationship  of  all  races  and  people ;  that  under  any  other  inspiration  the 
Churches  of  Jesus  Christ  could  not  have  sent  forth  their  young  men  as 
to  a  holy  crusade;  that  without  this  religious  factor  so  large  an  army 
could  not  have  been  peaceably  mobilized  by  conscription,  nor  could  our 
soldiers  have  fought  with  such  utter  abandonment  of  self  for  any  less 
object  than  that  lofty  declaration  which  was  echoed  over  the  world  as 
America's  assurance  and  prophecy  of  liberty  and  just  government  for 
all  men. 

It  is  under  the  urgency  of  such  convictions  that  we  now  protest  that 
no  consideration  of  national  finance  or  politics,  and  no  conflict  between 
home  authorities,  no  matter  of  what  origin  or  purpose,  should  be  allowed 
to  thwart  the  original  humanitarian  intent  and  just  expectation  of  the 
American  Churches  and  people.  To  their  unstinted  consecration  of 
money  and  life  and  what  they  hold  higher  than  either,  their  faith  in 
God  and  in  their  country,  was  due  the  victory  that  is  now  gravely  im- 
periled by  their  representatives  in  government. 

Assured  that  the  constitutional  powers  of  the  Congress  with  regard 
to  the  making  of  war  contain  sufficient  guarantee  for  our  national  safety 
and  sovereignty  in  every  serious  contingency  involved,  we  urge  the  en- 
tire treaty-making  power  to  respect  the  honor  of  our  government  toward 
its  own  people,  and  to  redeem  the  pledge  to  the  allied  nations  implied  by 
our  participation  in  the  war  and  our  presence  at  the  peace  conference. 
We  also  owe  consideration  to  the  weak  republics  born  through  our  sacri- 
fice and  theirs  to  an  independent  national  existence  which,  without  us,  it 
will  be  impossible  for  them  to  maintain. 

Surely  the  Christian  Churches  now  gathering  hundreds  of  millions 
of  dollars  for  world  reconstruction  after  the  model  of  American  ideals 
have  the  right  to  an  unhampered  access  to  all  the  needy  peoples  of  the 
earth.  When  the  soul  of  a  free  people  makes  war,  the  fruit  of  their  vic- 
tory is  as  sacred  as  the  memory  of  their  dead  who  died  for  their  cause. 


Louisville  Meeting 


391 


The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  What  will  you  do  with  the 
paper? 

It  was  moved  and  seconded  that  the  paper  be  adopted.  Also, 
that  it  be  signed  by  the  two  Presidents  and  the  two  Secretaries 
of  the  Commissions,  for  the  Joint  Commission.  These  motions 
prevailed. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston) :  Now  we  are  ready  to  take 
up  the  report  which  was  before  us  this  morning.  Will  the  Sec- 
retary give  us  the  state  of  the  question?  There  was  a  motion 
pending ;  I  think,  a  motion  by  Bishop  McDowell. 

The  Secretary :  That  is  correct. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  made  that  motion  under  what  I  supposed 
to  be  the  desire  of  the  Commission.  I  have  no  desire  at  all 
to  press  the  matter.  I  certainly  have  no  desire  to  debate  it. 
If  the  Commission  now  wishes  to  sit  together  as  a  Joint 
Commission,  I  am  equally  willing.  I  am  in  the  most  amiable 
mood  in  the  world ! 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Do  you  withdraw  the  mo- 
tion? 

Bishop  McDowell :  It  is  in  the  hands  of  the  house. 

Bishop  Moore :  I  want  to  offer  a  motion  relating  to  the  report 
itself.  We  have  studied  this  matter  for  three  years.  We  have 
been  in  session  at  Baltimore,  Traverse  City,  Savannah,  St.  Louis, 
Cleveland — five  places  before  coming  here.  I  think  that  we  have 
come  to  the  place  where  we  should  take  up  this  paper  and  act 
on  it  as  quickly  as  we  can.  I  think  there  are  two  ways  in  which 
we  could  do  it.  One  is  to  take  up  the  paper,  consider  it  seriatim 
as  we  have  done  hitherto,  and  see  what  corrections  we  should 
make  in  the  document  itself.  There  are  corrections  and  altera- 
tions that  I  personally  would  want  to  make.  But  if  we  are  not 
going  to  adopt  this  report  as  our  plan  of  unification,  it  is  a  mat- 
ter of  very  small  concern  to  me  as  to  whether  or  not  those  altera- 
tions are  made;  and  I  would  greatly  prefer  that  this  Commission 
take  up  seriously  the  question  as  to  whether  it  will  adopt  this  re- 
port— that  is,  the  substance — the  whole  plan  of  unification  that 
is  involved  there.  And  I  think  we  ought  to  come  to  that  ques- 
tion, and  come  to  it  immediately,  either  in  this  full  session  or  in 
the  separate  sessions  of  the  two  Commissions.  Therefore  I  offer 
this  as  a  motion — I  move  that,  subject  to  such  alterations  and 
additions  in  minor  details  as  may  be  made  in  the  seriatim  con- 
sideration of  this  document,  this  report  in  its  provisions  for  the 
General  Conference,  Regional  Conferences,  and  Judicial  Council 
be  adopted  as  the  plan  of  unification,  to  be  recommended  by  this 
Commission  to  the  General  Conferences  of  the  two  Churches  for 
their  final  determination. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston) :  That  would  be  a  substi- 
tute for  the  motion  pending. 


392    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

Bishop  McDowell:  Would  it  relieve  the  situation  if  I  with- 
drew that  motion?  With  the  permission  of  the  house,  I  will 
withdraw  it. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  The  motion  is  withdrawn, 
and  the  motion  of  Bishop  Moore  is  before  you. 

Bishop  Moore :  Then  the  question  is  whether  or  not  you  will 
vote  on  this  matter  here  or  whether  we  shall  go  apart  and  vote 
on  it  separately,  or  whether  we  shall  discuss  the  matter.  As 
far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  am  ready  to  vote  this  minute.  I  am 
ready  to  vote  here  in  this  general  session;  I  am  willing  to  go 
apart  with  my  own  Commission  and  vote  there.  I  have  stated 
the  matter  carefully.  I  am  thoroughly  convinced  that  if  this 
Commission  is  ever  to  give  to  the  General  Conferences  a  plan  of 
unification  it  must  take  this  report.  I  believe  that  if  we  do  not 
adopt  this  report  we  must  take  the  other  horn  of  the  dilemma 
and  announce  to  the  General  Conferences  that  they  should  create 
a  new  basis  for  negotiation  and  perhaps  create  new  Commissions 
to  work  out  a  plan  on  a  new  basis.  I  believe  that  this  committee 
has  brought  to  us  about  the  last  word  that  we  can  say  as  far 
as  the  suggestions  contained  in  the  Chattanooga  declarations  are 
concerned.  They  have  worked  out  these  basic  principles,  then 
wrought  them  into  this  paper.  If  we  are  not  ready  to  adopt  the 
plan  of  unification  in  this  paper,  then,  it  seems  to  me,  there  is 
very  little  more  we  can  do  along  the  line  of  the  principles  that 
have  engaged  us  hitherto.  I  offer  this  motion.  If  it  is  seconded, 
it  is  before  you  and  you  can  act  separately  or  together. 

P.  H.  Linn :  I  should  like  to  ask  the  speaker,  did  you  purpose- 
ly leave  out  of  your  statement  the  title,  "Associate  General  Con- 
ferences"? 

Bishop  Moore:  No. 

P.  H.  Linn:  Why  not  include  that?  Then  there  would  be  no 
discrimination  against  any  part  of  the  report. 

Bishop  Moore:  I  meant  no  discrimination  of  that  kind. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  think  I  did  not  quite  correctly  speak,  for 
the  minute,  on  Bishop  Moore's  motion.  I  think  I  would  like, 
with  the  permission  of  the  Joint  Commission,  to  say  a  word 
touching  our  experience  at  Richmond  which  led  to  the  produc- 
tion of  the  document  that  is  sent  to  the  Joint  Commission  by  the 
ad  interim  committee.  When  we  came  together  at  Richmond, 
we  faced  these  two  or  three  questions :  Under  the  motion  that 
created  the  Joint  Commission  were  we  simply  to  do  our  very 
best  to  untangle  the  differences  between  the  two  papers  that  were 
before  us  at  Cleveland?  Or  were  we  authorized  to  go  further 
afield  and  consider  the  whole  large  matter  that  has  been  before 
us  in  all  our  sessions  from  the  time  we  first  met  at  Baltimore? 
Failing  to  reach  a  conclusion  on  the  basis  of  the  plan  that  we 
had  been  working  on,  were  we  authorized  to  proceed  upon  a  new 


Louisville  Meeting 


393 


line  of  suggestion  and  advise  the  General  Conferences  that  we 
had  sincerely  endeavored  to  accomplish  unification  by  the  process 
of  reorganization,  that  we  had  not  reached  a  successful  outcome, 
and  that  we  now  advise  that  the  endeavor  be  made  on  a  different 
basis?   The  different  basis  would  have  involved  the  endeavor  to 
reach  unification  by  a  process  of  cooperation,  a  process  of  work- 
ing together.   For  a  moment,  perhaps  for  longer  than  a  moment, 
this  latter  suggestion  seemed  to  have  immediate  and  large  favor, 
but  it  was  finally  felt,  I  think  by  the  entire  fourteen  men  pres- 
ent at  Richmond,  that  we  must  make  a  sincere  and  conscientious, 
and  as  intelligent  an  effort  as  we  could  make,  to  reach  a  plan 
upon  the  basis  upon  which  we  had  been  working  through  the 
entire  period  since  we  first  met  at  Baltimore.    It  will  be  remem- 
bered that  at  Cleveland,  in  the  paper  presented  in  behalf  of  the 
Commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  it  was  stated 
that  we  regarded  ourselves  as  under  instruction  to  secure  unifi- 
cation— not  to  show  reasons  why  it  could  not  be  accomplished; 
that  we  were  under  instructions  to  accomplish  unification  by 
reorganization.    We  therefore  felt,  I  think  all  of  us,  at  Rich- 
mond, that  we  were  officially  bound  to  make  an  honest  and  con- 
scientious endeavor  to  get  a  plan  that  we  could  submit  to  the 
Joint  Commission,  looking  toward  the  accomplishment  of  our 
great  purpose  by  the  process  with  which  we  had  become  familiar. 
And  the  paper  that  is  before  you  now  is  the  outcome  of  that 
endeavor.   Four  men  worked  upon  it — how  many  hours  I  do  not 
know,  because  I  was  not  one  of  the  four.   But  they  worked  upon 
it  many,  many  hours.    And  it  is  sent  here  as  the  best  result 
that  could  be  reached,  in  the  judgment  of  the  fourteen  persons 
present,  on  the  basis  upon  which  we  have  been  working.  Now 
I  think,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I  ought  to  go  thus  far  at  this  mo- 
ment.  I  think  we  are  bound  to  make  our  last  effort  together  to 
reach  an  agreement  upon  the  plan  of  unification  by  reorganiza- 
tion.   In  spite  of  our  differences,  our  personal  differences  of 
opinion,  as  to  many  details  and  as  to  some  principles  involved  in 
this  method,  we  are  under  a  measure  of  instruction  at  that  point 
from  both  General  Conferences.    And  if,  after  these  years  of 
work,  the  result  that  we  can  send  back  to  them  is  not  acceptable 
to  the  General  Conferences  and  then  to  the  Churches  them- 
selves, it  will  be  for  the  General  Conferences,  and  then  the 
Churches,  to  say  that  the  result  is  not  satisfactory.    It  may  be 
that  we  cannot  reach  an  agreement  among  ourselves.   It  may  be 
that  this  best  we  could  do  is  not  good  enough.    But  I  believe  I 
speak  for  the  entire  fourteen  men  at  Richmond  in  saying  that  we 
felt  ourselves  under  a  moral  and  ecclesiastical  obligation  to  do 
the  best  we  could  to  reach  a  result,  in  the  hope  that  the  Joint 
Commission  might  find  it  acceptable,  and  sufficiently  acceptable 
to  recommend  it  to  the  General  Conferences.   Do  I  state  fairly 


394     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

the  judgment  of  the  fourteen  men  who  were  at  Richmond?  It 
is  very  true,  of  course,  as  has  been  stated  here,  that  the  fourteen 
persons  there  present  did  not  discuss  the  merits  of  this  plan. 
Any  person  therefore  of  that  body  who  finds  himself  unable  to 
agree  with  the  provisions,  with  the  principles,  or  with  the  details 
of  the  document  before  us  now,  will  be  free  to  differ  from  it 
without  acting  in  bad  faith  at  all,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  we 
did  not  have  opportunity,  after  it  was  prepared,  to  consider  it 
among  ourselves.  I  have  tried  to  state,  Mr.  Chairman,  exactly 
the  principle  that  we  had  before  us  at  Richmond  as  interpreting 
what  is  now  before  us  and  what  is  the  subject  of  Bishop  Moore's 
motion. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  That  duty  is  exceedingly 
well  discharged. 

Bishop  Ainsworth :  Mr.  Chairman,  I  move  that,  pending  the 
joint  discussion  of  the  motion  of  Bishop  Moore  that  is  before  us, 
we  do  now  dissolve  into  separate  Commissions,  that  we  may  give 
our  consideration  to  the  paper  before  us.  I  am  not  here  in  a 
personal  capacity,  but  I  am  here,  along  with  my  other  brethren, 
as  the  representative  of  a  Church,  and  I  cannot  very  intelligent- 
ly go  into  this  discussion  until  I  know  the  considerations  that  led 
the  representatives  from  our  Church  on  the  Joint  Committee  to 
the  conclusions  that  are  formulated  in  this  paper.  I  would  like 
to  know  their  minds,  and  the  considerations  that  induced  them 
to  these  conclusions,  before  we  consider  it  here  in  the  Joint  Com- 
mission. I  therefore  move  that  we  dissolve  ourselves  into  meet- 
ings of  the  separate  Commissions  at  this  time. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  Before  that  question  is  voted  on,  there  is  a 
question  not  a  part  of  the  debate  that  I  would  like  to  raise  at 
this  time.  Attention  was  called  this  morning  by  one  of  the 
ad  interim  committee  to  the  fact  that  there  were  some  verbal 
changes  to  be  made  in  that  report  that  might  affect  its  meaning. 
I  presume  those  changes  have  been  made  or  agreed  upon.  It 
seems  to  me,  before  anything  else  is  done,  we  ought  to  know 
what  those  changes  are,  and  every  one  be  able  to  enter  the 
change  of  phraseology  in  his  own  copy. 

P.  H.  Linn :  The  only  entry  that  needs  to  be  made  is  this :  On 
page  7  of  your  folder,  line  25,  after  the  word  "jurisdiction"  add 
the  words  "for  residential  supervision";  not  "presidential,"  but 
"residential."   The  other  matters  were  mere  matters  of  editing. 

Bishop  Cannon :  While,  as  I  suppose,  it  could  be  gathered  from 
what  I  said  this  morning  that  I  rather  think  we  will  expedite 
matters  by  adopting  Bishop  Ainsworth's  motion,  it  has  occurred 
to  me  that  if  any  menber  of  the  Commission  has  any  question  to 
ask  concerning  the  meaning  of  any  part  of  this  paper,  or  desires 
any  sort  of  explanation,  that  might  be  helpful.  If  there  is  no 
one  who  desires  to  ask  any  question,  I  think  we  had  better  adopt 


Louisville  Meeting 


395 


Bishop  Ainsworth's  motion;  but  if  there  is  any  question  con- 
cerning any  part  of  the  paper  that  any  brother  has  in  mind,  it 
might  help  us  if  we  had  it  at  this  stage. 

Bishop  Denny :  There  is  a  matter  that  was  under  discussion 
at  one  of  our  previous  meetings,  and,  after  discussion  for  a 
longer  or  shorter  time,  it  was  adopted  by  the  Commission;  but 
I  noticed  that  it  is  omitted  in  two  places  in  this  report.  Possibly 
it  was  an  oversight.  I  ask,  not  to  take  it  up  now,  but  simply  to 
know  whether  it  was  omitted  purposely.  The  first  one  is  on  page 
3,  line  27 :  "Each  Regional  Conference  shall  have  power  to  elect 
from  time  to  time  the  number  of  bishops  allotted  to  it  by  the 
General  Conference,  'according  to  a  uniform  principle/  "  That 
latter  part  was  adopted  after  discussion,  and  it  does  not  appear 
here.  Was  that  purposely  omitted  or  not? 
.  Bishop  Cannon :  It  was  purposely  omitted. 

Bishop  Denny :  That  answers  my  question. 

P.  H.  Linn:  I  was  in  error -in  the  matter  of  one  word.  If 
you  will,  turn  to  page  3,  line  22.  This  is  a  matter  of  detail  to 
make  the  paper  uniform.  Insert  the  word  "publishing"  after  the 
word  "control"  and  before  the  word  "educational." 

T.  N.  Ivey:  I  would  like  to  ask  this  question.  On  page  10, 
at  the  bottom  of  the  page,  we  have  these  words:  "The  Judicial 
Council  shall  be  composed  of  fifteen  ministerial  and  lay  members, 
to  be  nominated  by  the  general  superintendents  by  a  two-thirds 
vote  and  elected  by  the  General  Conference."  I  do  not  exactly 
understand  how  we  are  going  to  divide  that  body  of  fifteen  min- 
isterial and  lay  members. 

Bishop  Cannon :  It  simply  means  that  the  Council  shall  be  com- 
posed of  fifteen  ministerial  and  lay  members.  It  does  not  say 
how  many  of  each. 

T.  N.  Ivey:  You  do  not  intend,  then,  to  have  a  certain  num- 
ber of  each? 

Bishop  Cannon:  There  cannot  be  the  same  number,  because 
it  is  fifteen. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  A  motion  was  made  by 
Bishop  Ainsworth. 

Bishop  Ainsworth :  It  is  simply  a  motion  to  retire  into  separate 
meetings. 

E.  B.  Chappell :  The  rest  of  us  would  like  to  know  what  we 
are  to  do  when  these  two  bodies  retire  into  separate  Commis- 
sions. 

Edgar  Blake:  The  words  "according  to  a  uniform  principle" 
were  dropped  out;  but  in  the  making  up  of  the  report  we  had  to 
cut  up  the  old  report  and  paste  in  certain  parts  and  typewrite 
in  certain  other  parts.  In  that  paragraph  in  which  this  phrase 
occurs,  that  was  pasted  in,  and  the  words  "according  to  a  uni- 


396     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

form  principle"  were  stricken  out.  My  recollection  is  that  the 
words  should  be  stricken  out. 

Bishop  Denny :  Then  we  are  in  doubt  whether  they  are  in  or 
out.  If  they  be  in,  on  page  7,  line  13,  after  the  word  "Confer- 
ences" we  should  also  have  the  same  phrase,  "according  to  a  uni- 
form principle."   It  ought  to  be  in  both  places  or  out  of  both. 

Secretary  A.  W.  Harris :  The  document  as  printed  is  your 
guide  until  you  change  it.  Those  phrases  are  out  unless  there 
is  a  motion  to  put  them  in. 

Bishop  Moore :  My  motion  contemplated  a  seriatim  considera- 
tion of  the  report  after  the  adoption  of  the  motion  that  I  made. 
We  are  first  to  adopt  those  general  principles  there  involved,  and 
then  we  should  come  back  for  the  seriatim  consideration  of  the 
report  for  the  correcting  and  perfecting  of  the  instrument. 

J.  J.  Wallace :  The  proposition  was  to  insert  the  words  "ac- 
cording to  a  uniform  principle"  in  line  13  after  the  word  "Con- 
ferences." I  think  it  should  be  put  in  line  12  after  the  word 
"fix." 

Bishop  Mouzon :  With  all  due  respect  to  the  brethren  who 
do  not  agree  with  me,  I  am  of  opinion  that  we  are  losing  time 
now;  and  I  insist  on  your  putting  the  motion  that  we  now  dis- 
solve. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  It  was  understood  that 
brethren  should  ask  questions;  but  not  all  the  afternoon,  I  sup- 
pose. The  motion  is  to  adjourn  in  order  that  the  Commission 
may  have  separate  meetings.  I  presume  the  calling  together  will 
be  left  to  the  Chairmen. 

The  motion  to  go  into  separate  sessions  was  put  and  prevailed. 

Edgar  Blake :  For  information,  may  we  hear  the  motion  read 
again? 

Bishop  Moore:  I  moved  that,  subject  to  such  alterations  and 
additions  in  minor  details  as  may  be  made  in  a  seriatim  consid- 
eration of  this  document,  this  report,  in  its  provisions  for  the 
General  Conferences,  Associate  General  Conferences,  Regional 
Conferences,  and  Judicial  Council,  be  adopted  as  the  plan  of  uni- 
fication to  be  recommended  by  this  Joint  Commission  to  the  Gen- 
eral Conferences  of  the  two  Churches  for  their  final  determina- 
tion. 

The  session  closed  with  the  benediction  pronounced  by  Dr. 
J.  J.  Wallace. 

SECOND  DAY,  FRIDAY,  JANUARY  16,  1920. 

The  Joint  Commission  was  called  to  order  at  9:25  a.m.  by 
the  Chairman,  Bishop  Cranston. 

The  hymn,  "O  thou  in  whose  presence  my  soul  takes  delight," 
was  sung,  after  which  Dr.  C.  C.  Selecman  led  in  prayer. 


Louisville  Meeting 


397 


Bishop  Cranston  read  Psalms  xc.  and  xci.,  after  which  he 
offered  prayer. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  We  are  somewhat  late  in 
coming  together  this  morning.  Shall  we  have  the  journal  of 
yesterday  ? 

Secretary  Harris  read  the  minutes  of  yesterday  afternoon's 
session,  which  were  approved  without  correction. 

The  roll  was  called  and  the  following  were  present:  Bishops 

E.  D.  Mouzon,  J.  M.  Moore,  James  Cannon,  Jr.,  W.  N.  Ains- 
worth,  Earl  Cranston,  R.  J.  Cooke,  W.  F.  McDowell.   Ministers : 

F.  M.  Thomas,  W.  J.  Young,  C.  M.  Bishop,  A.  J.  Lamar,  A.  F. 
Watkins,  P.  H.  Linn,  C.  C.  Selecman,  Edgar  Blake,  D.  G. 
Downey,  R.  E.  Jones,  Frank  Neff,  C.  B.  Spencer,  J.  J.  Wallace, 
C.  M.  Stuart.  Laymen:  H.  N.  Snyder,  P.  D.  Maddin,  R.  S. 
Hyer,  J.  H.  Reynolds,  R.  E.  Blackwell,  T.  D.  Samford,  J.  R. 
Pepper,  H.  H.  White,  J.  G.  McGowan,  E.  W.  Hines,  A.  W. 
Harris,  J.  R.  Joy,  C.  W.  Kinne,  I.  G.  Penn,  Rolla  V.  Watt,  E.  L. 
Kidney,  C.  A.  Pollock,  G.  W.  Brown. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  What  is  the  pleasure  of 
the  meeting? 

Bishop  Mouzon :  Mr.  Chairman,  a  motion  was  pending  at  the 
time  of  our  adjournment. 

Bishop  Mouzon  took  the  chair. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  Chair  understands  that 
the  motion  made  by  Bishop  Moore  was  pending  at  the  time  of 
adjournment.   What  is  the  pleasure  of  the  body? 

The  Secretary  read  the  pending  motion. 

Bishop  Cooke:  Inasmuch  as  we  adjourned  yesterday  evening 
in  order  that  we  might  consider  the  several  propositions  in  the 
motion  by  Bishop  Moore,  I  move  that  we  do  now  adjourn  to 
continue  the  work  which  we  then  began. 

This  motion  was  seconded. 

Dr.  Blake  moved  as  a  substitute  that  adjournment  be  to  2 
o'clock. 

Bishop  Cooke  accepted  that  amendment.  The  amendment  was 
accepted  by  the  body,  and  the  meeting  adjourned  until  2  o'clock. 

The  Joint  Commission  did  not  meet  on  the  afternoon  of  Jan- 
uary 16,  the  time  being  given  to  separate  meetings  of  the  two 
Commissions. 

THIRD  DAY,  SATURDAY,  JANUARY  17,  1920. 
Morning  Session. 

The  Joint  Commission  was  called  to  order  at  9  136  a.m.  by 
Bishop  Mouzon. 

Two  stanzas  of  the  hymn,  "I  love  to  tell  the  story,"  were  sung. 


398     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


Dr.  Frank  Neff  conducted  the  devotional  exercises  and  read 
the  latter  part  of  the  third  chapter  of  Ephesians. 
Prayer  was  offered  by  Dr.  W.  J.  Young. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  Secretary  will  read  the 
minutes  of  yesterday's  session. 

The  minutes  were  read  by  Secretary  Thomas,  and  approved 
without  correction. 

The  roll  was  called  and  the  following  were  present :  Bishops 
Earl  Cranston,  J.  W.  Hamilton,  W.  F.  McDowell,  F.  D.  Leete, 
R.  J.  Cooke,  E.  D.  Mouzon,  Collins  Denny,  J.  M.  Moore,  James 
Cannon,  Jr.,  W.  N.  Ainsworth.  Ministers:  Edgar  Blake,  D. 
G.  Downey,  R.  E.  Jones,  A.  J.  Nast,  Frank  Neff,  C.  B.  Spencer, 
C.  M.  Stuart,  J.  W.  Van  Cleve,  J.  J.  Wallace,  W.  J.  Young, 
C.  M.  Bishop,  E.  B.  Chappell,  T.  N.  Ivey,  A.  F.  Watkins,  A.  J. 
Lamar,  P.  H.  Linn,  C.  C.  Selecman,  J.  E.  Dickey,  F.  M.  Thomas. 
Laymen:  G.  W.  Brown,  A.  W.  Harris,  C.  W.  Kinne,  J.  R.  Joy, 
I.  G.  Penn,  C.  A.  Pollock,  Rolla  V.  Watt,  E.  L.  Kidney,  H.  N. 
Snyder,  P.  D.  Maddin,  R.  S.  Hyer,  J.  R.  Pepper,  J.  H.  Rey- 
nolds, H.  H.  White,  E.  W.  Hines,  R.  E.  Blackwell,  J.  G.  Mc- 
Gowan. 

Bishop  Cranston  took  the  chair. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  I  am  instructed  and  authorized  by  the  Com- 
missioners representing  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
to  make  to  you  the  statement  contained  in  the  paper  which  I 
have  in  my  hand.    It  is  as  follows : 

Resolved,  That  we,  the  Commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  hereby  authorize  our  Chairman  to  say  to  the  Commission 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  that  we  accept  the  report  of  the 
ad  interim  committee  as  offering  the  best  and  perhaps  the  only  solution 
of  the  problem  of  unification  of  the  two  Churches  now  obtainable.  But 
we  consider  the  changes  indicated  below  to  be  desirable,  if  not  essential. 
And  we  are  ready  to  join  you  in  considering  any  changes  that  may  be 
proposed  with  a  view  to  perfecting  the  paper. 

First,  on  page  13,  line  11,  amend  by  striking  out  the  word  "two-thirds" 
and  inserting  the  word  "three-fourths."  And  amend  line  17,  page  13, 
by  striking  out  the  word  "two-thirds"  and  inserting  the  word  "three- 
fourths."  I  suppose  every  one  gets  the  idea  of  the  Commission.  It  was 
thought  by  the  members  of  the  Commission  representing  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  that  it  ought  not  to  be  so  very  easy  to  amend 
the  Constitution.  And  we  are  asking  that  it  require  a  three-fourths  vote 
of  the  Conferences  after  a  measure  has  been  sent  down  from  the  General 
Conference,  rather  than  a  two-thirds  vote. 

Second,  on  page  10,  line  9,  amend  by  striking  out  the  word  "except" 
and  inserting  the  word  "including" ;  so  that  the  paragraph  shall  read : 
"Whenever  a  majority  of  each  of  two  Regional  delations  in  the  United 
States  shall  so  request,  a  vote  shall  be  taken  on  any  pending  motion  or 
resolution,  including  amendments  to  the  Constitution  by  Regional  dele- 
gations," etc.  And  that  suggestion  is  made  for  the  reason  indicated  a 
moment  ago,  that  it  was  thought  by  us  that  your  committee  had  made 
it  a  little  too  easy  to  amend  the  Constitution. 

The  third  suggestion  is,  just  by  way  of  clarifying  page  7,  line  4,  "To 


Louisville  Meeting 


399 


divide,  consolidate,  and  change  the  Regional  Conferences."  A  question 
arose  among  us  as  to  what  was  meant  by  "change  the  Regional  Confer- 
ences." We  felt  quite  sure  that  those  who  wrote  it  had  no  other  thought 
than  changing  the  area  of  the  Regional  Conferences ;  and  we  suggest 
that  those  words  be  inserted  so  as  to  make  it  read,  "To  divide,  consolidate, 
and  change  the  area  of  the  Regional  Conferences." 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  That  means  the  same  as 
"the  boundaries." 

Bishop  Mouzon:  Yes,  it  means  the  same.  This  paper  is  pre- 
sented to  you  by  the  Commission  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  There  was  no  action  taken 
in  our  Commission.  I  think  it  perfectly  proper  for  Bishop  Mc- 
Dowell, if  he  will,  to  state  what  transpired,  what  the  attitude 
of  the  Commission  is. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  did  not  keep  a  record  of  it. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Brother  Blake,  could  you 
doit? 

Edgar  Blake :  As  I  recall  now,  we  had  not  completed  the  con- 
sideration of  the  document.  We  did  not  make  the  rapid  prog- 
ress that  our  brethren  in  the  Southern  Commission  appear  to 
have  made,  and  my  understanding  is  that  when  we  adjourn 
there  are  one  or  two  other  matters  yet  to  be  considered  by  us. 

Bishop  McDowell :  I  think,  Mr.  Chairman,  this  additional 
statement  might  be  made,  that  we  did  not  at  all  take  up  the  ques- 
tion of  changes  that  would  possibly  be  made  in  the  seriatim 
consideration  of  this  document.  Practically  we  acted  upon  the 
first  part  of  Bishop  Moore's  motion.  And  in  general  we  passed 
two  or  three  motions  perhaps  subject  to  such  modifications  as 
might  be  made  in  the  seriatim  consideration  of  these  various 
items.  We  did  not  take  up  the  seriatim  consideration,  because 
we  felt  that  was  a  matter  for  the  Joint  Commission  and  that  we 
would  be  wiser  to  wait  until  we  had  considered  the  full  subject 
before  we  took  up  these  items.  We  took  no  formal  votes.  Our 
votes  were  all  informal,  and  were  not  made  a  matter  of  record. 
If  I  could  be  permitted  to  confer  with  Dr.  Blake  and  Dr.  Joy, 
I  think  we  could  get  an  exact  statement  as  to  what  we  did  in- 
formally approve. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  I  am  very  sure  that  the 
Commission  would  save  time  by  allowing  the  few  minutes.  We 
cannot  very  well  go  forward  until  we  know  what  are  our  points 
of  agreement  and  of  disagreement. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  May  I  inquire  if  it  would  be  the  pleasure  of 
the  Commission  to  withdraw  into  separate  sections? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Oh,  no.  Matters  to  be 
considered  seriatim  can  be  considered  here  as  well  as  in  separate 
sessions.    We  should  have  the  light  you  have,  and  you  should 


4QO     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


have  what  light  we  have.  We  can  now  go  forward  better  to- 
gether than  by  continuing  our  separate  sessions.  While  these 
brethren  are  conferring,  I  am  going  to  take  the  liberty  of  using 
this  time  a  little  better,  I  think,  than  we  can  use  it  in  recess. 
We  ought  to  remind  ourselves  that  the  most  significant  event  of 
the  centuries  is  now  transpiring  in  connection  with  the  assem- 
bling of  the  First  Council  of  the  League  of  Nations.  Is  it  not 
fitting  that  we  should  have  a  prayer,  invoking  God's  blessing 
upon  those  men  for  the  spread  of  the  spirit  of  conciliation  and 
arbitration?  I  am  sure  you  will  feel  that  this  is  appropriate,  and 
I  think  I  will  call  upon  Bishop  Leete  to  lead  us  in  such  a  prayer. 
Bishop  Leete  offered  prayer. 

Bishop  Cooke:  I  would  like  to  add  one  amendment  to  those 
that  have  been  offered.  On  page  8,  with  reference  to  the  Re- 
strictive Rule,  it  reads,  "The  General  Conference  shall  not 
change  or  alter  any  part  or  rule  of  our  government  so  as  to  do 
away  with  episcopacy,  or  to  destroy  our  itinerant  general  super- 
intendency."  You  will  notice,  brethren,  that  the  words  "the  plan 
of,"  which  have  been  in  the  Constitutions  of  both  Churches  from 
the  beginning,  are  omitted.  I  suppose,  to  those  who  would  read 
this,  that  would  be  a  very  unimportant  matter.  They  would 
think  the  "plan"  is  a  word  the  meaning  of  which  could  easily 
be  derived  from  the  lexicons  and  the  dictionary.  But  you  Meth- 
odists know  that  one  might  ransack  all  the  dictionaries  in  the 
world  and  not  get  the  meaning  of  the  word  "plan"  as  it  has  been 
used  in  Methodism  from  the  beginning.  In  this  paper  which  we 
have  before  us,  and  which  I  suppose  will  be  adopted,  we  have 
apparently  (I  say  "apparently"  advisedly)  a  circumscribed  epis- 
copacy. The  truth  of  it  is,  there  is  no  provision  in  this  plan  at 
all,  yet,  for  the  episcopacy  anywhere  but  in  the  Regional  Con- 
ferences. The  bishop  is  not  a  member  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence. It  is  supposed  that  only  one  of  the  bishops  should  preside. 
According  to  this  plan  there  is  no  reason  why  he  should  be  at 
any  General  Conference.  He  has  no  duty  there.  Only  one  has 
a  duty,  and  he  may  be  elected  to  that  by  his  brethren.  And  so 
the  episcopacy  seems  to  stand  out,  as  it  is  here,  merely,  as 
Hamline  once  termed  it,  and  as  he  tried  to  foist  upon  the  rest 
of  us,  the  idea  that  it  is  an  abstraction  which  the  General  Con- 
ference could  mold  and  shape  according  to  its  desires  in  any  way 
possible.  Now,  why  this  word  "plan"  at  all,  and  why  should 
we  retain  it?  I  have  spoken  of  the  apparent  meaning  that  our 
episcopacy  is  now  circumscribed.  What  is  back  of  this  word 
"plan"? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Brother  Cooke,  will  you 
pardon  me?  You  do  not  seem  to  have  the  same  understanding 
that  the  Chair  has  of  the  position  of  things  just  now.  When 
we  came  together,  Brother  Mouzon  made  a  report  of  doings 


Louisville  Meeting 


401 


which  he  read.  And  then  by  agreement  Bishop  McDowell  and 
Dr.  Blake  were  to  present  to  the  Commission  what  we  had  agreed 
upon.  And  it  seems  to  me  that  there  is  no  discussion  proper, 
and  no  motion,  just  at  this  juncture.  I  recognized  you  because 
I  thought  perhaps  you  wanted  to  make  a  motion.  If  you  do, 
make  the  motion,  and  perhaps  we  will  be  in  order.  But  it  will 
keep,  will  it  not? 

Bishop  Cooke:  No.  Not  now,  after  I  have  gone  as  far  as  I 
have.  I  will  make  the  motion,  if  I  can  get  a  second  to  it,  that 
the  words  "the  plan  of"  be  inserted. 

This  motion  was  seconded. 

D.  G.  Downey:  Bishop  Mouzon  presented  the  changes  sug- 
gested by  the  Southern  Commission.  He  did  not  make  any  mo- 
tion. He  simply  suggested  that  those  changes  be  considered.  I 
presume  Bishop  Cooke  is  putting  his  matter  in  on  the  same  basis, 
as  a  matter  to  be  considered  hereafter.  Therefore,  I  presume, 
no  discussion  is  necessary.  It  simply  goes  in  as  one  of  the 
things  to  be  considered. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Bishop  Cooke's  motion  is 
before  you. 

Bishop  Cooke:  What  I  am  saying  is  not  for  the  purpose  of 
discussion,  but  in  order  to  make  up  our  minds  whether  it  is 
worthy  or  not  to  be  put  into  the  report.  I  am  not  discussing,  but 
simply  wish  to  make  a  statement.  What  is  back  of  this?  What 
is  the  meaning  of  that  word  in  our  Methodist  history?  Why  is 
it  put  in  there  at  all?  What  does  it  mean?  Does  it  mean  the 
mere  matter  of  appointments?  It  goes  to  the  very  root  and  es- 
sence of  Methodist  episcopacy,  the  character  of  it.  In  1805 
Bishop  Coke  was  in  England.  He  wrote  back  to  this  country 
that  he  was  willing  to  return  and  give  his  services  in  the  office, 
provided  that  they  divided  the  Conferences  between  him  and 
Asbury.  Well,  the  preachers  rose  up  against  that.  And  in  1806 
William  McKendree,  representing  the  Western  Conferences, 
wrote  back  to  him  a  very  sharp  letter  and  declared  that  if  that 
was  what  he  insisted  upon,  and  that  was  the  condition  of  his 
return  to  episcopal  functions  in  the  United  States,  they  did  not 
want  him  to  return — that  they  did  not  want  a  divided  episcopacy. 
So,  in  order  that  that  should  be  in  the  economy  of  Methodism, 
when  the  General  Conference  met  two  years  after,  they  delib- 
erately, with  the  proposition  of  Coke  before  them  to  divide  the 
episcopacy,  inserted  the  word  "plan" — that  is,  meaning  the 
scheme  or  character,  not  simply  the  matter  of  appointment. 
Therefore  it  got  in  a  "plan,"  a  unified  episcopacy,  not  cir- 
cumscribed, but  unified,  each  part  having  the  powers  of  the 
whole,  and  the  whole  in  the  part.  Now,  then,  we  have  taken 
that  out  in  reality.  For  nowhere  are  the  powers  of  our  episco- 
pacy described,  but  simply  left  up  in  the  air  to  be  interpreted 
26 


402     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


as  may  happen.  That  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  wise.  We 
lose  nothing  by  putting  in  the  words  "the  plan  of." 

Edgar  Blake :  I  move  that  we  defer  further  consideration  of 
that  matter  until  we  come  to  it  in  the  natural  order  when  consid- 
ering the  paper  seriatim. 

This  motion  of  Dr.  Blake's  prevailed. 

Bishop  McDowell :  Mr.  Chairman,  as  we  came  to  look  over 
the  record  that  Miss  Deakyne  had  kept,  we  found  that  we  had 
not  taken  a  formal  action  directing  the  presentation  of  the  in- 
formal votes  that  had  been  taken  in  our  Commission.  And  it 
was  the  judgment  of  Dr.  Blake,  Dr.  Joy,  and  myself  that  we 
ought  to  ask  for  a  very  few  minutes  of  session  by  ourselves  in 
order  to  get  the  kind  of  action  that  enabled  Bishop  Mouzon  to 
present  the  action  of  the  Commission  of  the  Church,  South,  to 
the  Joint  Commission. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  I  move  that  this  request  be  granted,  and  that 
the  brethren  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  be  permitted  to 
retire. 

This  motion  was  carried,  and  the  Commission  of  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church  withdrew  for  a  separate  session. 

Afternoon  Session. 

The  Joint  Commission  was  called  to  order  at  1 130  p.m.  by  the 
Chairman,  Bishop  Cranston. 

A  hymn  was  sung  and  Bishop  Ainsworth  offered  prayer. 

Bishop  Cranston  read  the  Scripture,  and  three  stanzas  of  "All 
hail  the  power  of  Jesus'  name"  were  sung. 

The  minutes  of  the  morning  session  were  read  and  approved. 

The  roll  was  called  and  the  following  were  present:  Bishops 
E.  D.  Mouzon,  Collins  Denny,  J.  M.  Moore,  W.  N.  Ainsworth, 
James  Cannon,  Jr.,  Earl  Cranston,  J.  W.  Hamilton,  W.  F.  Mc- 
Dowell, F.  D.  Leete,  R.  J.  Cooke.  Ministers:  F.  M.  Thomas, 
W.  J.  Young,  C.  M.  Bishop,  E.  B.  Chappell,  T.  N.  Ivey,  A.  J. 
Lamar,  A.  F.  Watkins,  P.  H.  Linn,  C.  C.  Selecman,  J.  E.  Dickey, 
Edgar  Blake,  D.  G.  Downey,  R.  E.  Jones,  Albert  J.  Nast,  Frank 
Neff,  C.  B.  Spencer,  J.  W.  Van  Cleve,  J.  J.  Wallace,  C.  M. 
Stuart.  Laymen:  H.  N.  Snyder,  P.  D.  Maddin,  R.  S.  Hyer, 
J.  H.  Reynolds,  T.  D.  Samford,  J.  R.  Pepper,  H.  H.  White, 
J.  G.  McGowan,  E.  W.  Hines,  G.  W.  Brown,  A.  W.  Harris, 
J.  R.  Joy,  C.  W.  Kinne,  I.  G.  Penn,  C.  A.  Pollock,  Rolla  V. 
Watt,  E.  L.  Kidney. 

Bishop  Mouzon  took  the  chair. 

Bishop  McDowell :  You  were  kind  enough  to  adjourn  this 
morning  in  order  to  enable  the  Commissioners  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  to  withdraw  for  the  final  preparation  of  a 
statement  to  the  Joint  Commission.  I  am  directed  to  present  the 
following  statement,  to  say  that  we  have  agreed  upon  the  fol- 


Louisville  Meeting 


403 


lowing  motion,  which  I  present  in  the  form  of  a  resolution  and 
recommendation  adopted  by  the  Commission  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  at  its  session  this  forenoon : 

Resolved,  That,  subject  to  additions  and  alterations  which  may  be 
made  in  the  seriatim  consideration  of  the  report  of  the  Committee  of 
Fourteen,  the  Commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  accept 
said  report  as  a  plan  of  unification  to  be  presented  by  the  Joint  Commis- 
sion to  our  respective  General  Conferences  for  their  final  determination. 

We  especially  recommend 

1.  The  further  consideration  of  the  number  and  geographical  distribu- 
tion of  the  white  Regional  Conferences  in  the  United  States,  as  outlined 
in  Article  III.,  Section  1,  Subsection  A. 

2.  That  the  word  "administrative"  be  substituted  for  the  word  "legis- 
lative" in  line  16,  page  3. 

3.  That  on  page  6,  lines  4  to  9  be  so  phrased  as  to  assure  to  the 
present  colored  membership  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  full  pro- 
portionate representation  in  the  General  Conference. 

In  behalf  of  the  Commission  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
I  present  this  document. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  What  is  the  will  of  the 
body? 

Bishop  Moore:  I  move  you,  sir,  that  the  paper  now  be  taken 
up  for  seriatim  consideration.  As  I  understand  it,  we  have  ac- 
tions by  these  two  Commissions.  While  the  wording  is  a  little 
different,  the  two,  as  I  understand  it,  have  practically  accepted 
this  general  report.  They  have  asked  for  a  seriatim  considera- 
tion. So  it  seems  to  me  that  the  thing  to  do  is  now  to  pass  to 
that  consideration.   I  make  that  motion. 

Bishop  McDowell:  I  do  not  wish  to  speak  upon  that  motion, 
but  would  like  to  have  you  put  it,  if  it  is  your  pleasure  now.  I 
will  ask  upon  a  question  of  personal  privilege  the  opportunity 
to  say  a  word  before  being  obliged  to  leave  in  a  half  hour.  I 
will  do  it  after  the  passage  of  the  motion  or  before,  just  as  you 
please. 

Bishop  Cranston:  A  point  of  order.  Have  we  not  a  motion 
before  us? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  point  of  order  is  well 
taken:  The  motion  made  by  Bishop  Moore  two  days  ago.  Will 
the  Secretary  read  that  motion? 

Bishop  Moore:  If  you  will  allow  me,  I  will  withdraw  that 
motion,  in  view  of  the  action  taken  by  the  two  Commissions. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  There  seems  to  be  no  ob- 
jection to  withdrawing  it. 

C.  M.  Bishop :  I  do  not  think  you  can  withdraw  the  motion  in 
any  parliamentary  way.    I  have  no  objection,  however. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Is  there  objection  to  with- 
drawing the  motion  made  two  days  ago  by  Bishop  Moore? 

No  objection  was  made. 


404     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  motion  is  now  with- 
drawn, and  your  motion  is  in  order,  Bishop  Moore. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  I  say  it  with  extreme  regret,  and  with  honest 
sadness  in  my  heart.  I  do  not  see  that  we  shall  do  anything  but 
consume  time  by  entering  now  into  a  seriatim  discussion  of  this 
report.  The  report  made  by  Bishop  McDowell  shows  that  our 
brethren  of  the  Northern  Commission  stand  on  their  original 
ground,  held  when  we  began  these  negotiations.  It  apparently 
eviscerates  the  Regional  Conferences,  and  adopts  the  standard 
of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  on  the 
color  question.  There  is  absolutely  no  possible  agreement  on 
that  basis.  I  therefore  think  that  it  would  be  unnecessary  for 
us  to  consume  two  or  three  more  days  in  a  useless  seriatim  dis- 
cussion, when  at  last,  at  the  end  of  our  discussion,  we  will  come 
to  the  point  at  which  we  now  rest,  absolute  variance,  irreconcil- 
able variance  on  the  two  main  propositions  involved  in  uni6ca- 
tion.    I  hope  Bishop  Moore's  motion  will  not  prevail. 

Bishop  Hamilton :  I  know  the  motion  that  I  am  about  to 
make,  or  rather  the  request,  will  not  be  objected  to  by  my  good 
brother,  Dr.  Lamar.  Bishop  McDowell  must  leave  at  3  150  this 
afternoon.  We  may  not  have  the  opportunity  of  having  him 
with  us  again.  I  think  that,  without  discussing  this  matter  any 
further,  to  allow  Bishop  McDowell  to  give  the  reasons,  and  to 
make  such  other  statements  as  he  desires  before  he  retires,  con- 
cerning the  presentation  of  this  report,  will  not  be  questioned 
by  the  Joint  Commission. 

Bishop  Denny :  If  you  will  allow  me,  I  make  that  motion. 

A.  J.  Lamar :  I  second  it. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  recognize  in  a  certain  way  the  embarrass- 
ment that  Bishop  McDowell  might  be  under  in  making  a  state- 
ment with  the  possibility  that  after  he  makes  his  statement  a 
motion  might  be  adopted  which  would  render  that  statement  use- 
less or  out  of  order.  Speaking  for  myself  alone,  I  do  not  agree 
with  Dr.  Lamar.  The  paper  presented  by  the  Commission  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  states  squarely  that  they  favor  the 
transmission  of  this  paper  to  the  General  Conferences,  but  they 
suggest  certain  modifications.  I  am  not  informed  that  these 
brethren  intend  to  insist  upon  that. 

T.  N.  Ivey :  I  was  under  the  impression  that  this  was  to  be 
transmitted  to  the  General  Conferences  on  condition  that  the 
changes  mentioned  by  Bishop  McDowell  should  be  adopted. 

Bishop  Cannon :  It  does  not  say  that  at  all.  Their  suggestion 
is  made  just  as  we  made  suggestions  in  our  statement  this  morn- 
ing. I  do  not  understand  that  it  is  useless  to  proceed  unless 
we  agree  here  and  now  that  those  suggestions  will  be  incorpo- 
rated. I  certainly  favor  taking  up  this  report  seriatim.  I  am 
willing  to  debate  this  question  fairly  again. 


Louisville  Meeting 


405 


The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  May  the  Chair  make  a  re- 
mark here?  I  confess,  brethren,  that  the  report  presented  by 
our  brethren  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  comes  to  me  as 
a  distinct  surprise  and  a  serious  disappointment.  If  I  under- 
stand this  report  at  all,  it  says  absolutely  nothing.  It  is  as  color- 
less as  it  is  possible  to  write  a  paper.  It  simply  means :  "With 
the  understanding  that  we  favor  the  elimination  of  the  Regional 
Conferences,  turning  the  Regional  Conference  into  an  episcopal 
area,  or  something  similar  to  that,  or  what  is  known  as  a  Central 
Conference  in  the  mission  field;  and,  with  the  elimination  from 
the  report  of  that  compromise  which  had  been  agreed  to  cover- 
ing the  status  of  colored  men  in  the  reorganized  Church — that 
is,  with  the  understanding  that  we  favor  the  evisceration  of  the 
report,  we  are  willing  to  take  it  up  and  discuss  it  subject  to  con- 
ditions— any  sort  of  conditions — and  alterations,  any  sort  of 
alterations — no  limiting  word  being  used  in  either  case."  I  say 
that  this  is  as  ambiguous  a  report  as  it  is  possible  for  one  to 
conceive,  and  it  gets  us  nowhere.  And  I  think,  with  Dr.  Lamar, 
that,  having  marched  up  the  hill,  and  now  having  marched  down 
it  again,  it  is  not  worth  while  for  us  to  march  up  a  second  time. 

Bishop  Ainsworth :  I  should  be  very  glad  to  hear  from  Bishop 
McDowell  as  to  the  reasons  that  controlled  the  presentation  of 
the  report  in  this  form.  I  believe  he  is  under  the  necessity  of 
going  away  in  a  little  while ;  and  I  should  feel  that  I  had  been 
deprived  of  something  if  I  had  not  had  from  his  own  lips  a  state- 
ment of  the  reasons  that  controlled  the  formulation  of  a  report 
of  this  character.  But  while  I  am  speaking  I  would  say  that  I 
would  like  particularly  to  know,  if  it  be  possible  to  have  an  an- 
swer to  that  question,  how  strongly  the  Commission  from  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  would  feel  itself  bound  to  insist 
upon  the  substitution  of  the  word  "administrative"  for  the  word 
"legislative"  in  defining  the  powers  of  the  Regional  Conferences. 
If  they  must  strongly  insist  on  the  insertion  of  that  word,  it 
means  the  turning  of  the  switch  that  divides  the  parallel  move- 
ment of  the  two  Commissions.  We  would  not  be  able  to  come 
together  on  that  basis. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  I  recognize  Bishop  Mc- 
Dowell. 

Bishop  McDowell :  Mr.  Chairman,  my  desire  to  say  a  word  be- 
fore being  obliged  to  leave  was  not  quite  synonymous  with  my  de- 
sire to  discuss  the  motion  now  pending,  which  is  to  proceed  to  the 
seriatim  consideration  of  the  Richmond  report.  It  was  under- 
stood that  the  motion  of  Bishop  Moore  as  made  two  days  ago 
was,  generally  speaking,  before  both  of  us,  though  it  was  made 
before  the  Joint  Commission.  And  it  was  understood  by  us,  I 
think,  that  if  in  the  main  we  did  accept  the  Richmond  document 
as  stating  a  basis  to  be  presented  to  the  General  Conferences, 


406     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


we  were  then  in  position  to  proceed  to  suggest,  in  the  seriatim 
consideration,  various  amendments.  It  would  seem  to  us  that 
we  were  justified  in  that  position  by  the  fact  that  this  morning 
a  series  of  vital  amendments  came  from  the  Commission  from 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  which  could  only  be 
taken  up  in  a  seriatim  consideration  of  the  document.  And  if 
it  be  true  that  the  substitution  of  the  word  "administrative," 
which  is  not  a  new  word,  for  the  word  "legislative,"  which  is 
one  of  the  words  that  we  have  put  before  you  for  consideration 
in  the  seriatim  debate — if  that  constitutes  a  complete  and  utter 
destruction  of  the  whole  plan,  or  the  throwing  of  the  switch, 
we  might,  though  we  will  not,  say  in  reply  that  the  proposition 
to  substitute  the  word  "including"  for  the  word  "except,"  with 
reference  to  the  powers  of  Regional  Conferences  on  the  subject 
of  constitutional  amendment,  is  in  our  judgment  just  about  as 
radical  a  change  as  any  we  have  here  proposed.  And  further- 
more, that  the  proposition  to  establish  "three-fourths"  as  the 
ratio  instead  of  "two-thirds"  as  the  ratio  for  constitutional 
amendments,  does  introduce  not  only  the  provision  for  making 
constitutional  changes  difficult,  for  preventing  a  change  from 
being  made  easy,  but  under  the  circumstances,  and  taken  in  con- 
nection with  the  other  proposal  giving  the  Regional  Conferences 
the  power  as  organized  to  act  upon  constitutional  amendments, 
virtually  makes  constitutional  changes  impossible.  Therefore  it 
would  seem  to  me,  in  response  to  Bishop  Mouzon's  suggestion, 
that  the  things  we  have  proposed  for  debate  in  the  seriatim  con- 
sideration are  not  more  severe  or  drastic  or  extreme,  not  more 
significant,  than  the  suggestions  that  were  this  morning  pre- 
sented in  behalf  of  our  brethren  of  the  Commission  from  the 
Southern  Church.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  much  is  simply  by 
way  of  comment  upon  what  has  been  said.  May  I  say  this  word 
concerning  what  I  have  presented?  The  first  part  of  this  state- 
ment, or  resolution — namely,  "Subject  to  additions  and  altera- 
tions which  may  be  made  in  the  seriatim  consideration  of  the 
report  of  the  Committee  of  Fourteen,  the  Commissioners  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  accept  said  report  as  a  plan  of  uni- 
fication"— is  pretty  nearly  the  exact  form  of  the  motion  as  sub- 
mitted by  Bishop  Moore.  His  motion  did  have  in  it  "in  minor 
details,"  I  think.  But  who  shall  say  what  is  or  is  not  a  minor 
detail?  And  we  have  confidence  that  Bishop  Moore  in  the  use 
of  the  words  "in  minor  details"  did  not  mean  to  eliminate  the 
possibility  of  discussing  any  matters,  large  or  small,  in  the  docu- 
ment. Did  we  misinterpret  you,  Bishop  Moore?  We  felt  that 
under  the  seriatim  discussion  any  modification  that  might  be 
agreed  to  in  the  discussion  in  this  Joint  Commission  would  come 
under  the  terms  of  your  motion.  Now,  touching  the  second 
point,  "the  further  consideration  of  the  number  and  geographical 


Louisville  Meeting 


407 


distribution  of  the  white  Regional  Conferences  in  the  United 
States,"  what  we  meant  to  do  in  that  part  of  the  document  was 
simply  this,  to  open  that  subject  again  (it  never  having  been  for- 
mally or  finally  closed)  for  the  purpose  of  adopting,  if  we  could, 
such  a  plan  for  the  distribution  of  Regional  Conferences  in  the 
States  as  might  make  it  more  certain  that  we  would  carry  this 
plan  through  the  two  Churches.  We  must  give  you  our  view 
when  that  question  comes  up.  You  must  give  us  your  view  when 
the  question  comes  for  final  settlement.  And  we  thought  our 
suggestion  would  bring  the  subject  before  us  for  the  full  presen- 
tation of  both  views.  I  have  the  distinct  feeling  (and  will  only 
speak  for  myself  in  this  matter,  though  I  do  not  doubt  I  do  speak 
for  others)  that  one  of  the  things  that  we  must  at  least  faith- 
fully and  fully  present  is  a  plan  of  geographical  distribution 
which  on  the  border  line,  where  the  North  and  the  South  meet, 
shall  secure  a  certain  equality  of  power,  so  that  no  considerable 
portion  of  the  members  of  either  Church  shall  be  simply  trans- 
ferred to  a  Regional  Conference  that  is  predominantly  a  Regional 
Conference  of  what  was  the  other  Church.  That  is  all  that  we 
have  in  our  mind  at  that  point.  There  are  other  considerations. 
Take  the  Northwest  section  as  it  is  proposed.  Members  of  our 
Commission  feel  the  geographical  vastness  of  it,  and  are  wishing 
that  it  might  be  fairly  talked  over  here,  to  see  whether  it  is  pos- 
sible to  secure  a  readjustment  that  will  secure,  first,  the  prac- 
tical homogeneity  which  we  all  seek,  and,  secondly,  the  proper 
proportion  and  balance  which  we  must  carefully  preserve  if  we 
are  to  carry  this  plan  through  the  two  Churches.  The  protection 
of  the  minority  is  most  necessary,  not  in  a  General  Conference 
which  meets  once  in  four  years,  but  in  the  life  of  those  Churches 
day  in  and  day  out  through  every  day  of  the  four  years.  Now, 
touching  the  third  item — namely,  the  provision  that  the  para- 
graph relating  to  the  status  of  the  colored  membership  shall 
be  so  written  as  to  show  a  certain  thing — it  was  agreed,  I  think, 
in  the  report  of  the  Richmond  Committee,  the  ad  interim  com- 
mittee, that  that  was  the  intention  and  effect  of  the  paragraph 
that  was  presented.  And  that  while  the  figures  30  to  40  are 
named  in  the  report,  those  figures  are  named  because  they  were 
thought  to  meet  just  exactly  that  proportion.  In  other  words, 
in  a  Church  with  6,000,000  members,  with  300,000  or  350,000 
negro  members,  it  was  thought  that  five  per  cent  of  the  body,  or 
the  exact  proportion,  whether  it  is  five  or  five  and  one-half  per 
cent,  whatever  is  essential,  should  be  the  percentage  allotted  to 
the  negro  members  organizing  into  a  Regional  Conference  of 
their  own.  Now,  when  we  came  together  yesterday,  faced  the 
form  of  that  statement,  and  remembered  the  intention  of  the 
statement,  it  seemed  to  us  that  in  order  to  make  perfectly  clear 
what  was  intended,  we  should  write  it  in  clearly  at  the  start  in- 


408     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

stead  of  leaving  it  open  for  anybody  to  raise  the  question,  "Well, 
now,  this  minimum  of  30  and  maximum  of  40,  how  does  that 
work  out?"  Instead  of  everybody's  thus  inquiring  as  to  the 
meaning,  have  the  words  "proportionate  representation  for  the 
full  membership/'  If  they  are  in,  nobody  needs  to  inquire.  And 
we  understood  that  it  was  the  intention  to  put  the  essence  of 
proportionate  representation  into  the  Richmond  report.  And  all 
that  we  are  asking  now  is  that  it  be  put  definitely  into  this  final 
report. 

Bishop  Cannon :  You  have  not  touched  upon  the  substitution  of 
the  word  "administrative"  for  the  word  "legislative." 

Bishop  McDowell:  Thank  you,  I  will  in  just  a  moment.  At 
Cleveland,  you  will  remember,  Bishop  Cannon  presented  the  fol- 
lowing statement,  under  paragraph  2 :  "These  Regional  Confer- 
ences shall  each  have  representation  in  the  General  Conference 
in  proportion  to  their  membership  in  full  standing."  It  is  pro- 
vided that  each  of  them  shall  have  at  least  five  of  each  kind, 
and  provided  further  that  the  delegates  shall  not  exceed  five  per 
cent  of  the  entire  membership  of  the  General  Conference.  And 
this  was  the  effort  at  that  point.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  touching 
the  other  item  to  which  my  attention  was  called,  there  has  been 
from  the  beginning  a  very  grave  question  as  to  the  powers  that 
ought  to  be  granted  to  the  Regional  Conferences.  Many  of  the 
most  ardent  friends  of  the  Regional  Conference  idea  have  felt 
that  those  Conferences  were  chiefly  for  administrative  purposes, 
and  that  the  use  of  the  word  "legislative"  concerning  their  pow- 
ers would  surely  and  swiftly  lead  to  a  conflict  of  authority  be- 
tween these  and  the  General  Conference  on  the  one  hand  and  be- 
tween these  and  the  Annual  Conferences  on  the  other  hand. 
They  will  unquestionably  take  certain  action,  just  as  Annual 
Conferences  now  take  certain  action,  which  will  be  within  their 
own  borders,  within  their  own  regions,  more  or  less  legislative. 
But  it  did  not  seem  to  us,  and  it  does  not  seem  to  us  now,  that 
they  ought  to  have  powers  distinctly  named  as  legislative  powers, 
but  that  the  limitation  should  be  put  at  this  point,  so  that  such 
legislation  as  they  should  indulge  in,  such  as  Annual  Confer- 
ences now  indulge  in,  would  be  incidental  and  would  not  lead 
to  certain  conflict  between  these  and  other  bodies.  We  have  the 
feeling  that  the  Regional  Conference  is  a  perfectly  new  thing  in 
our  system  and  in  our  plan,  and  that  we  would  vastly  better 
begin  with  the  minimum  of  power  granted  to  this  new  body  and 
let  its  powers  grow  as  experience  goes  forward,  than  begin  with 
the  maximum  of  power  and  endeavor  to  take  away  power  as 
time  goes  on.  And  therefore  we  put  the  word  "administrative" 
in  place  of  the  word  "legislative,"  as  one  of  the  subjects  for  con- 
sideration and  debate  before  this  body.  It  seemed  proper  for  us 
to  do  that.   I  shall  be  obliged  to  be  excused  in  two  or  three  min- 


Louisville  Meeting 


409 


utes.  May  I  say  in  a  personal  way  before  going  these  very  per- 
sonal words  ?  I  never  quite  coveted  the  quality  that  the  Pope  is 
supposed  to  possess — namely,  the  quality  of  infallibility — in  any 
other  matter  as  I  have  coveted  that  quality  in  this  particular 
matter.  If  I  were  as  sure  of  my  wisdom,  or  of  yours,  in  this 
business,  as  I  am  sure  of  the  heart  of  us  all,  my  own  burdens 
these  days  would  be  a  good  deal  lighter  than  they  are.  I  share 
with  you — repeating  a  word  I  said  last  night — I  share  with  you 
that  uncertainty  which  is  due  not  at  all  to  our  desire,  but  is  due 
to  the  interrogation  point  that  is  in  every  mind  here  as  to  wheth- 
er this  is  the  way  to  get  to  our  goal.  I  am  not  at  all  particular 
about  how  I  shall  look  when  I  get  to  the  goal.  No  football  player 
cares  a  penny  whether  he  loses  an  ear  or  has  his  nose  put  out  of 
joint  and  comes  to  the  goal  with  his  face  smeared  and  dirty  and 
a  tooth  lost.  He  is  anxious  for  the  goal.  If  I  were  sure  that 
this  is  the  process  of  getting  ourselves  across,  as  I  am  sure  of 
the  desire  that  we  shall  get  across,  I  should  be  a  very  happy  man. 
More  than  for  any  other  thing  relating  to  these  two  Churches,  I 
pray  that  they  may  be  one  in  their  spirit  as  well  as  one  in  their 
form,  and  one  in  their  form  as  well  as  one  in  their  spirit.  Now, 
it  may  be  possible  that  the  introduction  of  any  plan  we  have 
proposed,  any  plan  upon  which  we  can  agree  for  presentation, 
is  going  to  introduce  into  both  Churches  divisive  activities,  ar- 
guments, controversies,  that  will  be  serious  both  as  concerns  the 
collection  of  the  great  Centenary  subscriptions  that  have  been 
made  and  the  promotion  of  that  revival  of  religious  life  for 
which  we  are  all  praying.  And  no  one  of  us  wants  to  introduce 
that  kind  of  thing  into  the  life  of  our  Churches  at  this  time. 
And  it  may  be  also  (and  here  I  speak  only  for  myself,  without 
any  authority  to  say  it  in  behalf  of  the  Commission  to  which 
I  belong),  it  may  be  that,  after  all,  we  ought  to  present  to  the 
two  General  Conferences  our  faithful  effort  to  arrive  at  a  con- 
clusion upon  the  basis  of  what  we  conceive  to  be  their  instruc- 
tions to  us,  and  let  them  determine,  as  they  finally  must,  whether 
these  efforts  are  in  harmony  with  their  purposes;  and  then, 
in  addition  to  the  presentation  of  that  sort  of  document,  present 
one  or  more  alternative  plans  looking  toward  the  same  end — 
namely,  the  unification  of  the  Churches.  The  last  word  I  can 
expect  to  say  to  you,  Mr.  Chairman  and  brethren  beloved,  is 
just  this :  It  may  be  just  now  we  can  come  together  in  a  docu- 
ment which  we  can  agree  to  send  to  the  General  Conferences. 
It  may  be  as  far  as  we  can  go  is,  to  come  to  an  agreement 
upon  a  document  just  to  present  without  recommendation,  as  rep- 
resenting the  best  we  can  do  upon  the  lines  on  which  we  have 
been  working.  I  do  not  pretend  to  know  just  how  far  we  can  get 
just  now.  But,  brethren,  we  must  not  break,  we  must  not  sepa- 
rate. And  we  must  not  lose  sight  of  that  goal  to  which  the  senti- 


410    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

ment  of  our  Churches  and  the  Spirit  of  God  together,  I  believe, 
have  been  urging  us  and  to  which  the  state  of  the  world  is  calling 
us.  And  if  we  can  accomplish  unification  upon  the  basis  of  any 
plan  that  we  can  work  out  by  seriatim  consideration  of  these  va- 
rious matters,  if  we  can  accomplish  unification  by  that,  well  and 
good,  for  unification  is  the  thing  we  seek.  If  we  can  accomplish 
it  by  sending  this  up,  together  with  alternative  plans,  still  unifica- 
tion is  the  thing  we  must  seek.  And  if  new  plans  have  to  be  made 
and  new  commissions  created,  still  unification  is  the  thing  that 
we  must  seek.  The  life  of  an  individual  is  short;  the  life  of  a 
Church  is  long.  And  what  we  cannot  accomplish  in  one  day  or 
two  days,  these  Churches  of  Jesus  Christ  will  accomplish  under 
the  Spirit  of  God.  And  there  be  some  of  us  standing  here,  I 
do  believe,  who  shall  not  taste  death  until  they  see  it.  Thank 
you,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  letting  me  say  these  things. 

H.  H.  White :  Mr.  Chairman,  in  the  light  of  what  Bishop 
McDowell  said  in  his  closing  words,  I  wish  to  offer  an  alterna- 
tive plan.  If  necessary,  I  move  that  an  alternative  plan  be  con- 
sidered along  with  any  plan  before  us.  Now,  gentlemen,  when 
the  ad  interim  committee,  or  the  Committee  of  Fourteen,  met 
at  Richmond,  I  prepared  this  document,  submitted  it  to  several 
gentlemen  of  the  respective  organizations,  and  it  met  with  some 
approval.  I  remember  when  I  read  it  Bishop  Cannon  made  this 
rather  cryptic  remark,  "Well,  there  may  be  some  fish  up  that 
stream."  Dr.  Blake  said  that  he  was  not  interested  in  it.  I 
proposed  to  offer  it  as  a  substitute  for  the  report  which  was 
finally  adopted  there.  While  I  had  some  idea  that  perhaps  Bish- 
op McDowell  favored  the  principle  that  underlay  it,  still  he  re- 
quested me  not  to  present  it  as  a  substitute,  and  therefore  I 
did  not  do  it.  I  kept  it  in  abeyance,  with  the  statement  that,  if 
an  emergency  arose  here,  I  would  offer  it  here.  Now  I  did 
vote  that  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Fourteen  be  pre- 
sented here  without  recommendation,  reserving  to  myself,  as 
others  did  there,  the  right  to  oppose  it  here  or  to  offer  some- 
thing else  if  I  chose.  Personally  I  have  come  to  the  conclusion, 
since  hearing  the  report  of  the  brethren  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  that  there  is  no  use  whatever  of  further  attempt- 
ing to  get  together  on  the  plan  of  reorganization.  I  had,  as  one 
member  said  this  morning,  drifted  a  good  deal  from  the  position 
which  I  originally  took.  I  am  prepared  to  go  back  to  that  posi- 
tion and  stand  firm  upon  it,  allowing  of  course  every  other  man 
to  exercise  his  own  judgment  as  to  what  he  wants  to  do.  I 
shall  vote,  or,  if  I  have  to  leave  before  voHng,  I  shall  request 
my  proxy  to  vote,  against  any  plan  of  unification  that  permits 
any  legislative  or  any  executive  conference  with  any  negro  in 
it  (either  governmental,  ecclesiastical,  or  state)  in  which  white 
men  are  concerned.    In  other  words,  I  will  stand  on  the  princi- 


Louisville  Meeting 


411 


pies  that  I  enunciated  in  the  speech  which  I  made  in  Savannah. 
I  do  not  think  there  is  any  use  whatever  in  talking  about  a  lim- 
ited negro  representation  and  then  saying  that  it  shall  be  pro- 
portionate. It  is  repugnant  to  my  own  feeling  as  a  man,  to  my 
own  record  in  the  past,  to  the  feelings  that  my  people  entertain 
at  home.  I  am  not  going  to  vote  for  it.  And,  as  I  have  to  leave 
to-nrght,  I  shall  ask  that  my  proxy  vote  against  it.  However, 
I  will  offer  this  as  a  substitute  for  all  matters  before  the  body. 
I  believe  it  is  in  line  with  the  remarks  Bishop  McDowell  made. 
I  think  it  is  a  fair  implication  to  believe  that  he  favors  such  a 
plan;  not  all  the  details,  because  they  can  be  worked  out  at  a 
different  time  and  place;  but  the  principle  of  close  association 
rather  than  organic  union.  I  move  that  this  paper  be  made  a 
substitute  for  the  whole  matter  now  pending : 

Proposed  Plan  of  Unification  by  Cooperation. 

1.  We  suggest,  as  a  plan  of  reorganization,  the  merging  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  into 
one  Church  to  be  known  as  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America. 

2.  We  suggest  that  this  Church  shall  have  throughout  common  Ar- 
ticles of  Faith,  common  conditions  of  membership,  a  common  hymnal,  a 
common  catechism,  and  a  common  ritual. 

3.  We  suggest  that  the  governing  power  of  the  reorganized  Church 
shall  be  vested  in  the  several  General  Conferences  of  which  it  may  be 
composed.  We  suggest  that  there  be  an  Ecumenical  Council  to  be  com- 
posed of  delegates  from  all  the  bodies  of  which  the  reorganized  Church 
may  be  composed,  which  shall  have  no  legislative  power,  but  whose  ac- 
tion shall  be  deemed  in  the  highest  degree  advisory. 

4.  We  suggest  that  the  Mission  Boards  and  other  general  Boards  of 
the  several  General  Conferences  work  in  close  harmony,  and  be  jointly 
administered  in  so  far  as  possible. 

5.  We  suggest  that  overlapping  and  conflicting  work  in  the  limits  of 
the  respective  General  Conferences  be  eliminated  as  rapidly  and  as  com- 
pletely as  may  be. 

6.  The  Ecumenical  Council  shall  be  composed  pro  rata  of  delegates 
from  the  several  constituent  General  Conferences,  as  such  General  Con- 
ferences may  determine. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  hope,  Mr  Chairman,  that  if  Judge  White  feels 
he  must  go  he  will  leave  his  proxy  with  me! 

H.  H.  White:  I  have  no  doubt  Dr.  Blake  would  thoroughly 
carry  out  any  mandate  I  might  give  him. 

Edgar  Blake:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  not  quite  sure  that  Judge 
White  quoted  me  correctly.  And  I  am  not  certain  that  he  did 
not  quote  me  accurately.  I  think  I  meant  to  say  that  I  was  not 
enthusiastically  interested  in  his  document;  for  I  am  always  in- 
terested in  anything  that  Judge  White  has  to  say  or  to  present 
to  this  body,  as  all  of  us  are.  Now,  I  find  myself  very  much  in 
sympathy  with  the  motion  made  by  Bishop  Moore — namely,  that 
we  proceed  to  a  seriatim,  consideration  of  this  document.  I  am 
concerned  that  we  shall  not  get  to  "seeing  things"  so  early  in 


412     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

this  game.  I  may  say  this,  that  in  all  the  three  and  one-half 
years  in  which  I  have  been  associated  with  the  Commissioners  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  I  have  never  found  so  strong 
a  sentiment  in  that  group  of  men  as  there  is  to-day  for  the  con- 
summation of  this  unification  which  we  have  been  set  to  accom- 
plish, if  that  shall  be  possible.  I  think  there  is  a  more  earnest 
and  a  deeper  desire  on  the  part  of  all  my  brethren  that  we  shall 
arrive  at  some  satisfactory  solution,  at  this  time,  of  the  problem 
which  we  now  have  in  hand.  I  think  I  may  go  just  a  step  farther 
in  saying  that  I  believe  it  is  the  judgment  of  the  members  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  Commission  that  the  report  of  the 
Committee  of  Fourteen  is  the  most  satisfactory  document  this 
Joint  Commission  has  had  before  it  in  the  years  in  which  we  have 
been  meeting  together;  that  it  comes  nearer  reaching  the  satis- 
factory and  complete  solution  of  the  matters  we  have  in  hand 
than  any  other  proposition  we  have  thus  far  considered.  But 
there  are  many  members  of  our  Commission  who,  I  think,  feel 
that  the  document  is  not  a  perfect  instrument  by  any  means,  as 
yet;  and  that  there  are  many  items  in  the  document  that  could 
be  improved  upon,  upon  a  seriatim  consideration  of  the  matter. 
When  your  Commission,  Mr.  Chairman,  brought  in  its  report 
this  morning  saying  that  you  were  willing  to  accept  this  document 
as  the  best  plan  which  was  in  sight  (in  substance),  and  that 
you  were  willing  to  consider  further  changes  in  it,  with  us,  and 
you  made  certain  recommendations  as  to  certain  changes  in  the 
document,  we  did  not  understand  that  those  recommendations 
as  to  changes  were  ultimatums  on  your  part.  We  thought,  rath- 
er, that  in  your  judgment,  after  mature  consideration  together, 
it  was  desirable  that  certain  changes  should  be  introduced  into 
the  document  to  perfect  the  same,  and  you  wanted  to  talk  those 
matters  over  with  us.  We  may  have  misunderstood  you.  I 
think  not.  I  do  not  believe  the  spirit  of  that  document,  or  the 
letter  of  that  document,  contemplated  that  you  were  bringing  an 
ultimatum  to  our  Commission.  Now  that,  as  I  understand  it, 
is  precisely  the  spirit  and  the  attitude  and  the  action  of  our 
Commission.  We  framed  our  resolution  almost  precisely  in  the 
language  of  the  motion  made  by  Bishop  Moore,  under  which 
we  were  acting.  We  made  certain  recommendations.  We  did 
not  bring  them  here  as  ultimatums.  We  did  not  come  in  here 
to  say,  "You  brethren  must  accept  or  reject  these";  we  simply 
bring  them  here  as  recommendations,  to  talk  out  with  you.  You 
may  be  able  to  show  us  the  error  of  our  judgment  in  these  mat- 
ters. Some  of  us  have  understood  that  in  your  own  Commission 
there  are  those  who  desire  to  see  certain  changes  in  the  distri- 
bution of  these  Regional  Conferences.  There  are  those  of  us 
who  understood  that  there  were  those  of  your  Commission  who 
would  suggest  certain  changes,  certain  transfers  from  one  re- 


Louisville  Meeting 


413 


gion  to  another,  as  they  are  now  constituted.  There  are  those 
in  our  Commission  who  think  that  an  improvement  could  be 
made  in  the  present  geographical  distribution  of  our  Regional 
Conferences.  All  we  ask  is  that  we  shall  sit  down  here  together 
as  brethren,  not  as  Commissioners  of  the  Church,  South,  not 
as  Commissioners  of  our  Church,  but  as  Commissioners  of  the 
Lord  God  seeking  to  find  the  will  of  the  Lord  God  and  to  know 
our  duty  in  these  matters;  that  we  shall  sit  down  here  together 
and  try  to  perfect  this  document  together.  That  is  all.  I  think 
that  if  we  failed  at  any  point,  perhaps  we  did  not  interject 
color  enough  into  our  document.  Our  Chairman  characterizes 
it  correctly  as  a  rather  colorless  document.  The  only  thing  that 
surprised  me  was  that  a  colorless  document  should  so  complete- 
ly blind  him.  I  judge  that  what  our  Chairman  most  desires  is 
light. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Turn  it  on.  , 

Edgar  Blake :  That  is  exactly  what  I  want  to  do. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  You  have  often  done  it. 

Edgar  Blake:  That  is  to  say,  that  is  what  I  desire  to  have 
done.  And  I  believe  that  if  we  will  now  sit  down  together  as 
brethren  and  take  up  this  document  item  by  item  and  perfect  it 
to  the  best  of  our  ability  by  mutual  agreement  and  understand- 
ing, we  can  get  the  light  that  all  of  us  are  anxious  for.  For 
that  reason,  I  think  that  instead  of  spending  our  time  upon  gen- 
eral discussion,  of  which  we  have  had  no  limit  in  our  own  Com- 
mission, and  of  which  I  have  been  a  part — I  think  if  we  will 
devote  ourselves  now  to  the  consideration  of  the  matters  imme- 
diately in  hand,  we  will  make  progress.  I  speak  now  the  con- 
viction that  is  deeper  in  my  own  mind  and  heart  than  ever  be- 
fore, that  if  we  will  do  this  thing,  sit  down  with  these  concrete 
matters,  before  this  session  in  Louisville  shall  close  we  shall 
find  ourselves  seeing  eye  to  eye  upon  these  matters,  and  we  shall 
perfect  a  document  which  we  can  transmit  to  our  respective 
General  Conferences  for  final  determination. 

F.  M.  Thomas:  I  rise  to  move  a  substitute  to  the  motion  that 
has  been  made. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  There  is  a  substitute  be- 
fore the  house. 

F.  M.  Thomas :  I  understand  the  motion  of  Bishop  Moore  is 
to  take  it  up  seriatim. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Judge  White  presented  a 
paper  as  a  substitute,  and  his  motion  was  seconded. 

Bishop  Moore :  I  rise  to  a  point  of  order.  Judge  White's 
motion  is  not  in  order.  It  is  not  a  substitute  for  my  motion.  It 
brings  in  a  new  plan  for  unification.  We  are  charged  with  the 
responsibility  of  perfecting  this  that  we  have,  and  reaching  some 
sort  of  a  consummation  that  we  can  submit  to  our  General  Con- 


414     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

ferences.  Judge  White  offers  his  paper  with  the  feeling  in  his 
heart,  if  not  the  understanding,  that  we  have  failed  to  reach  an 
agreement  on  this  paper.  We  have  not  failed  to  reach  an  agree- 
ment on  this  paper.    His  motion  is  out  of  order. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  Chair  rules  that  Judge 
White's  paper  is  in  order  and  is  a  substitute. 

H.  H.  White :  I  do  not  know  much  about  parliamentary  pro- 
cedure. What  I  want  is  to  get  that  paper  before  the  house,  and 
have  it  considered  along  with  the  other. 

Bishop  Cannon :  Might  I  not  ask  Judge  White  if,  in  order 
that  we  might  have  an  orderly  consideration,  his  paper  having 
been  read  to  the  body,  he  would  not  withdraw  it  so  that  we  can 
consider  the  other  paper?  We  cannot  consider  both  together 
very  well.  If  we  do  not  find  ourselves  able  to  come  to  an  agree- 
ment, then  we  have  his  paper  as  an  alternative  we  can  consider. 

H.  H.  White:  That  is  what  was  done  at  Richmond,  and  I 
fell  outside  the  breastwork  entirely. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Dr.  Thomas  has  the  floor. 

F.  M.  Thomas:  Can  I  move  to  amend  Bishop  Moore's  motion? 
I  move  that  we  postpone  the  consideration  of  Judge  White's 
paper,  or  rather  to  lay  it  on  the  table. 

Bishop  Ainsworth:  If  Judge  White  would  not  regard  it  as  a 
discourtesy  to  lay  his  paper  on  the  table,  that  is  the  thing  to  do ; 
but  not  laying  it  on  the  table,  as  is  often  done,  in  order  to  kill  it. 
It  could  be  laid  on  the  table  until  such  time  as  we  see  fit  to  take 
it  up  for  further  consideration. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  I  understand  a  motion  to 
lay  on  the  table  has  been  made  and  is  seconded.   Is  that  correct? 

H.  H.  White :  If  that  motion  does  not  kill  the  paper,  I  am  will- 
ing. 

Judge  White's  paper  was  laid  on  the  table. 

F.  M.  Thomas :  I  have  the  more  delicacy  in  making  the  mo- 
tion I  am  going  to  make,  because  Kentucky  is  my  home,  and  I 
do  not  want  any  of  you  gentlemen  to  get  the  idea  that  we  want 
to  hurry  you  away  from  the  good  old  Blue  Grass  State.  I  have 
been  on  the  Commission  on  Federation  and  the  Commission  on 
Unification  about  thirteen  years  now,  and  I  have  observed  many 
things.  I  have  observed  that  we  find  ourselves  just  where  we 
are  now.  We  have  indulged  in  the  useless  expedient  of  taking 
up  a  matter  seriatim;  and  I  am  going  here  to  move  that  instead 
of  taking  this  up  seriatim,  we  take  up  the  vital  points  of  differ- 
ence contained  in  these  two  reports  and  discuss  them  and  vote 
upon  them. 

Bishop  Moore :  That  is  really  what  I  had  in  mind.  It  was 
not  a  seriatim  consideration  of  this  report,  except  to  open  the 
way  for  the  consideration  of  such  points.  That  will  be  perfectly 
satisfactory  to  me. 


Louisville  Meeting 


415 


F.  M.  Thomas :  I  move  that  we  take  up  for  immediate  consid- 
eration the  points  of  difference  brought  out  in  the  two  papers. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Do  I  understand  that  Bish- 
op Moore  is  withdrawing  his  motion? 

Bishop  Moore :  Dr.  Thomas  states  what  I  had  in  mind. 

A  Voice :  I  offer  an  amendment,  that  we  first  take  up  the  sug- 
gestions made  by  the  Commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  I  do  not  understand  the  purport  of  the 
amendment. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  Chair  understands  that 
the  purport  is  that  the  suggestions  in  the  paper  presented  by- 
Bishop  McDowell  be  first  taken  up ;  after  that,  those  contained  in 
the  other  paper. 

D.  G.  Downey:  May  I  inquire  the  reasons  for  that  order? 

A  Commissioner:  Because  if  we  cannot  agree  on  the  matters 
presented  by  the  Commission  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
there  is  no  use  in  going  any  further. 

D.  G.  Downey:  The  answer  to  that  is  that  the  same  applies 
to  the  other  order. 

Bishop  Cannon :  Why  not  adopt  my  suggestion,  that  these  sug- 
gestions be  taken  up  in  the  order  in  which  they  occur  in  the 
paper? 

P.  H.  Linn:  The  only  objection  to  that  is  this,  that  we  will 
consume  much  of  our  time  under  that  sort  of  thing  on  the  mat- 
ter of  Regional  distribution,  about  which  I  do  not  think,  and  it 
seems  to  me  none  of  us  could  think,  that  it  is  the  vital  thing 
at  all.  We  may  just  as  well  face  the  two  or  three  issues  that  are 
vital — whether  or  not  the  Regional  Conference  is  to  be  emascu- 
lated, whether  or  not  the  negro  equal  representation  must  be  put 
there  in  such  fashion  as  to  offend  the  whole  feeling  of  the 
South,  and,  third,  whether  or  not  you  will  protect  us  by  a  suffi- 
cient provision  concerning  constitutional  matters.  These  are 
the  three  things  that  seem  to  me  to  be  absolutely  cardinal.  It 
seems  to  me  that  the  quicker  and  more  frankly  we  face  those 
three  issues,  the  more  rapidly  can  we  make  progress.  To  open 
the  matter  of  geographical  distribution  means  that  we  will  spend 
our  time  now  upon  a  matter  that  is  not  the  cardinal,  vital  thing. 
I  think  I  know  the  feeling  of  my  own  Commission.  We  will  not 
stand  for  the  emasculated  Regional  Conference.  We  cannot 
stand  for  the  statement  of  the  colored  membership  proposal  in 
language  that  will  offend  the  great  white  population  of  the 
South.  And  the  question  is  whether  you  men  can  do  what  I 
hate  to  do — viz.,  make  the  process  more  difficult  in  the  matter  of 
amendment,  in  order  to  give  to  us  that  guarantee  which  we  ask 
concerning  the  matter  of  change.  I  am  willing  to  take  those 
questions  up  in  any  order  in  which  they  occur.    But  it  seems  to 


416    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

me  we  will  waste  our  time  if  we  go  now  to  discussing  the  ter- 
ritorial matters.  Why  not  face  these  vital  matters  fairly  and 
frankly?  I  move  that  this  be  the  substitute,  that  we  consider  first 
the  proposed  changes  in  method  for  constitutional  amendment; 
secondly,  the  change  relating  to  the  powers  of  the  Regional  Con- 
ferences ;  thirdly,  the  proposed  change  in  regard  to  the  statement 
concerning  the  colored  membership. 
This  motion  was  seconded. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  This  is  before  you  as  a 
substitute  for  the  whole. 

Edgar  Blake :  Now,  surely  all  we  desire  to  do  is  to  get  at  this 
thing  in  the  quickest  and  most  effective  way  possible.  The  thing 
which  I  fear  is  this,  that  if  you  go  to  take  up  these  matters 
under  the  general  heading — for  instance,  the  general  subject  of 
the  numbers  and  the  geographical  distribution  of  the  Regional 
Conferences — this  will  happen :  You  will  spend  your  time  on 
general  discussions,  as  we  have  always  done,  that  will  get  us 
nowhere.  If  you  will  proceed  seriatim  in  the  consideration  of 
these  matters,  you  will  come  to  every  one  of  them  in  regular  ( 
order.  I  do  not  believe  we  ought  to  jump  about  in  this  docu- 
ment ;  I  believe  we  ought  to  start  at  the  beginning  and  go  through 
to  the  end.  I  think  it  is  practically  certain  that  there  is  much  of 
this  document  that  will  not  cause  any  debate,  which  we  will 
be  glad  to  accept  as  Commissioners  representing  both  Churches. 
If  you  will  adopt  a  rule  of  procedure  that  will  put  a  three-min- 
ute limitation  upon  the  speeches,  and  then  instruct  the  Chair 
to  hold  those  of  us  who  speak  strictly  to  the  subject  or  motion 
in  hand,  I  think  we  can  make  large  progress  with  this  paper. 
But  if  you  go  on  the  hop-skip-and-jump  method,  taking  a  sub- 
ject here  and  another  there  and  another  yonder  and  discussing 
them  as  general  propositions,  we  are  not  going  to  get  very  far. 
What  I  want  to  see  in  reference  to  these  Regional  Conferences, 
this  matter  of  the  number  and  geographical  distribution,  is  that 
we  take  it  up  paragraph  by  paragraph.  And  if  any  man  thinks 
that  any  Regional  Conference  is  not  properly  cared  for,  let  him 
state  his  objection  and  make  out  his  case.  If  he  cannot  make 
out  his  case,  let  him  accept  the  document  as  it  stands.  Speaking 
out  of  the  experience  of  the  last  three  and  a  half  years  in  con- 
sidering these  matters,  I  feel  reasonably  sure  that  a  strictly  seria- 
tim consideration  will  get  us  along  much  faster  and  more  surely 
than  a  procedure  which  admits  general  discussions  with  only 
vague  propositions  before  us. 

Bishop  Leete :  Personally  I  am  as  willing  to  take  Dr.  Linn's 
motion  as  anything  that  has  been  proposed.  It  seems  to  me  it 
will  be  a  very  lengthy  and  drawn-out  affair  to  take  this  whole 
big  paper  and  go  through  it.  We  have  got  to  reach  these  points 
in  some  way  or  other.    I  think  Dr.  Linn's  motion  is  as  good  as 


Louisville  Meeting 


417 


any.  But  this  is  the  vital  question:  On  what  are  we  to  vote? 
If  it  is  on  the  best  plan  to  send  to  our  General  Conferences,  I 
personally  do  not  care  how  we  vote  on  any  one  of  these  three 
points.  But  if  we  are  trying  to  adopt  something  to  send  them 
with  our  approval,  or  with  the  practical  or  actual  statement  that 
we  are  for  these  things  and  will  defend  them,  then  it  is  a  matter 
of  vital  concern  what  we  act  upon.  My  personal  conviction  is 
that  the  wisest  thing  we  can  do  is  to  avoid  all  kinds  of  trouble 
by  unfortunate  publications  and  ungrounded  fears  through  our 
constituencies.  We  are  faced  with  that  kind  of  trouble.  In  both 
Churches  there  is,  I  think,  danger  of  defection  if  unwise  publi- 
cations or  reports  go  forth.  The  best  thing  we  can  do  is  to 
reach  an  agreement  that  here  we  will  go  as  far  as  we  can  in 
reference  to  these  various  differences  of  opinion  and  then  pass 
up  the  paper  to  the  General  Conferences  with  the  statement  of 
our  differences  of  opinion.  If  we  can  get  to  an  agreement,  send 
it  with  the  complete  agreement.  If  we  cannot  get  to  a  complete 
agreement,  send  it  with  that  lack  of  agreement  stated.  Take 
this  matter  of  "legislative"  or  "administrative."  Knowing  that 
the  General  Conference  will  have  to  pass  upon  that,  and  that 
it  will  be  its  act — if  it  does  act  upon  it  favorably  either  way — 
I  am  not  so  much  concerned  which  way  it  acts,  because  it  rests 
upon  the  General  Conference  and  not  upon  a  body  which,  how- 
ever intellectually  and  spiritually  competent,  is  rather  small. 
If  we  are  trying  to  pass  up  to  the  General  Conferences  the  very 
best  thing  we  can  get,  I  feel  very  much  disposed  to  be  very  lib- 
eral, and  to  stand  for  almost  anything  that  goes  into  it  which 
represents  the  consensus  of  opinion  of  the  men  here.  But  if  we 
stick  to  the  idea  that  we  are  trying  to  adopt  anything,  I  suppose 
many  here  will  feel  that  we  must  hold  fast  to  the  construction 
which  our  consciences  dictate  to  us  as  being  essential,  and  to 
which  we  must  finally  hold. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Will  you  permit  the  Chair 
to  make  a  statement  which  I  think  may  help  a  little  ?  The  Chair 
is  of  the  opinion  that  the  members  of  the  Commission  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  have  no  authority  to  discuss 
at  all  the  question  of  substituting  the  word  "administrative"  for 
"legislative."  That  is  not  a  question  that  we  have  any  authority, 
under  the  action  of  our  General  Conference,  to  take  up  with 
you.  When  our  Commission  first  met  in  the  city  of  Baltimore, 
a  committee  was  appointed  by  the  Southern  Commissioners  care- 
fully to  study  the  limits  of  authority  under  which  we  acted. 
And  a  paper  was  adopted  by  the  Southern  Commissioners,  and 
was  presented  in  the  Joint  Commission;  and  in  that  paper  this 
was  said:  "We  feel  bound  as  to  Jurisdictional  Conferences  that 
they  shall  have  their  autonomy,  legislating  upon  matters  involved 
in  their  own  jurisdiction."  And  when  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
27 


418     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

Church,  South,  acting  upon  the  Chattanooga  paper,  invited  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  appoint  Commissioners  to  con- 
sider the  reorganization  of  American  Methodism,  it  was  upon 
that  basis,  as  the  paper  before  me  indicates;  so  that  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Commission  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  cannot  consider  the  discussion  of  that  question,  as  we 
have  no  authority  to  discuss  unification  on  that  basis. 

Bishop  Hamilton :  I  made  no  speech  whatever  in  our  own 
Commission  during  the  discussion  of  this  plan  or  proposition 
that  has  been  submitted.  I  have  never  been  accustomed  to  spend 
much  time  in  speaking  on  subsidiary  motions.  I  have  not  much 
sympathy  with  that  form  of  debate.  I  always  want  to  grapple 
with  the  main  questions  involved.  Now,  on  this  matter  that  is 
before  you,  if  that  is  your  construction  of  the  absolute  limit  in 
your  discussion  of  that  question,  the  dictionary  is  a  very  big 
book,  and  it  is  possible  that  we  might  find  a  word  there,  especial- 
ly when  you  remember  the  specifications  that  are  given  in  this 
document  that  are  very  largely  administrative,  by  the  use  of 
which  we  will  not  have  as  much  difficulty  on  that  point  as  you 
may  think.  Let  me  say  this,  though  perhaps  not  germane  to  this 
one  motion :  I  am  much  in  sympathy  with  Brother  Linn's  motion 
that  we  get  right  to  the  gist  of  the  matter  as  soon  as  possible. 
Nothing  could  happen  worse  to  both  Churches  than  for  us  to 
separate  wihout  having  something  to  submit  to  the  approaching 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  We 
must  submit  something.  I  am  not  sure  but  that  I  would  favor 
submitting  to  both  our  General  Conferences  a  statement  that 
we  cannot  agree,  and  then  leave  them  to  determine  what  kind 
of  new  proposition  the  General  Conferences  would  agree  to. 
We  must  submit  something  in  our  report.  The  next  thing  I 
would  like  to  say  is,  that  not  a  single  one  of  these  itemized  state- 
ments was  voted  upon  in  our  Commission  as  to  its  merit.  So 
we  have  no  question  of  majorities  and  minorities.  And  it  is 
therefore  possible,  with  the  many  differences  that  existed  among 
us,  for  us  to  come  into  conference  with  you  and  possibly  find 
an  agreement  in  which  the  differences  in  our  own  Commission 
can  be  harmonized  by  simply  taking  something  that  you  are  will- 
ing to  offer  to  us.  I  will  say  in  addition  that  I  once  offered  a 
plan  that  I  believe  is  the  most  equitable  one.  But  it  could  not  be 
considered  because  our  General  Conference  obligated  us  to  the 
plan  of  Quadrennial  Conferences.  We  must  start  with  that  as 
a  basis.  The  question  of  their  territorial  distribution  and  the 
question  of  their  powers  are  matters  within  the  province  of  our 
Commission  and  your  Commission.  And  on  these  questions  we 
can  go  into  the  differences  that  are  between  us.  That  is  what 
we  are  here  for.  All  this  parliamentary  difference  does  not 
amount  to  anything  as  to  what  we  are  ultimately  intending  to 


Louisville  Meeting 


419 


reach.  I  do  not  care  anything  about  the  order  of  it.  If  we  can- 
not agree  upon  this  matter  that  the  Chairman  has  introduced, 
upon  the  distribution  of  the  Regional  Conferences,  upon  the 
powers  of  the  same,  it  is  a  very  easy  thing  for  us  to  acknowledge 
that  fact  here  and  report  it  to  our  General  Conferences.  Now, 
in  conclusion,  I  repeat  that  we  have  not  voted  in  any  way  on 
either  of  these  plans.  But  I  hold  myself  ready,  for  I  feel  com- 
petent, to  vote  individually,  irrespective  of  the  action  of  either 
of  these  Commissions.  We  only  present  this  matter,  as  the 
Richmond  Committee  presented  the  other  report  to  us — namely, 
we  present  it  for  conference  with  you,  not  having  adopted  by  a 
majority  vote  a  single  one  of  the  items  there.  I  fear  some  of  us 
may  think  we  will  never  get  together.  You  cannot  stop  this 
business;  it  is  in  the  air.  If  every  man  of  us  here  were  to  keep 
at  it  until  we  die,  and  die  disagreeing,  it  will  go  on  until  there 
is  an  organic  union  of  the  two  Churches.  It  may  be  that  it  will 
go  first  to  a  convention,  that  will  be  a  more  democratic  gather- 
ing, to  secure  agreement  there,  anticipating  the  consideration  by 
a  General  Conference.  'Or  if  we  can  agree,  as  I  would  like  to 
have  us  agree,  first  that  we  should  have  an  equal  number  of 
delegates  from  each  Church  in  the  Convention  or  General  Con- 
ference, as  the  case  may  be,  well  and  good.  It  may  be  then  that 
so  far  we  will  get  something  that  is  in  Judge  White's  paper. 
When  he  presented  it  to  me,  I  did  not  turn  it  away  with  a  slight. 
I  have  always  respected  every  man  that  comes  to  me  with  an  in- 
telligent opinion.  There  are  some  things  in  that  paper  that  I 
can  readily  accept,  and  all  of  us  accept.  But  not  the  paper  as 
a  whole.  Why  cannot  we,  without  so  much  parliamentary  dis- 
cussion, get  down  to  the  real  differences  between  these  two 
papers  and  learn  whether  we  can  agree  on  some  things  so  as  to 
harmonize  them,  and  if  not,  whether  we  can  agree  on  a  paper 
that  we  can  present  to  the  General  Conferences,  if  we  do  not 
adopt  it?  Excuse  me  if  I  seem  to  reflect  upon  brethren  who  are 
trying  to  measure  swords  in  parliamentary  debate.  Let  us  get 
down  to  business,  and  try  to  get  at  something  that  is  in  accord 
not  only  with  the  purpose  for  which  we  are  sent  here,  but  with 
the  trend  of  affairs  in  the  air  and  with  the  good  spirit  of  a 
godly  fellowship,  fitting  us  for  a  course  that  will  make  us  great 
leaders  in  the  world. 

The  vote  was  taken,  and  Dr.  Linn's  substitute  prevailed. 

P.  H.  Linn :  I  move  that  under  the  method  for  constitutional 
changes  we  turn  to  page  10  and  amend  in  line  9  by  striking  out 
the  word  '''except"  and  inserting  the  word  "including."  The  case 
is  simply  this,  that  we  come  into  the  united  General  Conference 
as  the  minority  party,  with  a  distinct  minority.  And  we  feel 
that  for  the  protection  of  minorities  you  should  do  for  us  the 
same  thing  in  constitutional  change  that  you  agree  in  the  paper 


420    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

to  do  in  regard  to  the  passing  of  an  ordinary  matter  of  procedure. 
In  the  other  matter  you  agree  that,  on  the  call  of  one-fifth,  the 
vote  shall  be  taken  by  Regions.  We  feel  that  for  constitutional 
protection  you  ought  to  give  to  us  exactly  the  same  provision. 
That  is  all.  I  do  not  believe  it  is  a  practice  that  would  be  re- 
sorted to  once  in  a  hundred  years,  because  I  think  that  when  we 
get  together  we  will  find  each  other  so  brotherly  that  we  shall 
have  no  need.  But  if  that  measure  is  necessary  in  ordinary  leg- 
islation, it  ought  to  be  necessary  in  constitutional  matters. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  feel  inclined  to  say  that  while  I  voted  for 
that  and  favor  it,  I  favor  it  as  a  matter  of  expediency.  I  do 
not  favor  it  because  I  really  think  that  in  actual  practice  it  is 
likely  to  be  necessary;  and  perhaps  it  might  not  always  be  de- 
sirable. But  I  favor  it  because  there  are  a  number  of  men  in 
our  Church  who  are  very  hesitant  as  to  this  matter,  and  I  am 
very  anxious  that  they  shall  be  shown  that  the  proposition  which 
is  presented  goes  to  the  very  limit  in  safeguarding  the  rights  of 
minorities.  And  I  am  anxious  that  tl^e  paper  shall  be  such  that 
opposition  to  it  shall  be  reduced  to  a  minimum.  I  think  perhaps 
I  may  say  that  were  it  not  for  the  matter  of  securing  the  ap- 
proval of  the  large  majority,  the  necessary  majority — I  do  not 
mean  by  that  a  small  majority,  but  the  great  majority — of  our 
people,  I  would  not  especially  favor  this.  But  the  desire  and 
the  necessity  to  secure  that  seem  to  me  to  justify  this  action. 
I  do  not  see  how  our  brethren  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
can  be  damaged  in  any  way  by  voting  for  this.  No  great  vital 
principle  is  likely  to  arise  that  will  damage  the  activities  of  the 
Church,  that  will  be  blocked  by  any  two  Regional  Conferences. 
No  two  Regional  Conferences  will  rise  up  and  say,  "This  shall 
not  be  done,"  if  it  is  a  great  vital  principle,  or  if  the  advance- 
ment of  the  kingdom  of  God  is  involved.  And  if  that  is  not  in 
danger,  why  not  agree  to  this  in  order  that  the  fears  of  timid 
brethren,  the  doubts  and  hesitation  of  men  who  are  honest  in 
their  position,  may  be  met?  Why  not  put  this  in  this  paper  so 
that  we  can  go  to  these  men  and  say,  "Here,  look  at  the  Consti- 
tution. The  minority  is  protected  certainly  as  safely  as  any 
minority  ever  was  protected,  or  more  so."  Now,  in  order  that 
we  may  get  support  for  this  paper  by  the  men  in  our  Church, 
in  other  words,  in  order  to  secure  unification,  as  a  matter  of  ex- 
pediency I  stand  here  and  plead  for  the  adoption  of  this,  al- 
though I  myself  personally  do  not  see  the  need  of  it.  Yet  there 
are  men  who  will  want  it,  and  I  want  the  support  of  those  men 
to  this  paper.  And  I  do  hope  that  the  brethren  will  agree  to  its 
adoption. 

T.  D.  Samford :  I  cannot  add  anything  to  what  Dr.  Linn  and 
Bishop  Cannon  have  so  clearly  and  forcibly  said  in  reference  to 
the  reasons  for  this  change,  except  that  possibly  it  would  be  in- 


Louisville  Meeting 


421 


teresting  for  us  in  this  connection  to  consider  the  principles  that 
govern  in  our  Federal  Constitution.  While  we  are  not  trying  to 
adopt  a  Constitution  in  all  respects  analagous  to  our  Federal 
Constitution,  it  is  an  instructive  guide.  In  order  to  obtain  an 
amendment  of  our  Federal  Constitution  it  is  necessary  that  a  res- 
olution to  that  effect  be  adopted  not  only  by  a  two-thirds  vote 
of  the  House  of  Representatives,  who  are  the  representatives  of 
the  people  directly,  but  also  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the 
Senate,  which  represents  the  respective  States,  and  then 
the  proposed  amendment  must  be  ratified  by  three- fourths 
of  the  States.  Now,  then,  if  it  is  our  purpose  here  to 
erect  Regional  Conferences  which  are  to  be  autonomous,  and 
which  are  to  have  legislative  power  and  authority,  it  seems  to 
me  that  the  principle  is  analagous  and  that  we  ought  not  to 
initiate  matters  in  reference  to  amendment  of  the  Constitution 
of  our  Church  unless  it  should  be  voted  upon,  or  at  least  have 
the  right  to  be  voted  upon,  by  this  two-thirds,  as  suggested  here 
in  this  sub-paragraph  4  of  page  10,  as  referred  to  by  Dr.  Linn. 
It  occurred  to  me  that  this  suggestion  might  be  helpful  to  us  in 
adopting  this  principle  in  this  proposed  constitution. 

D.  G.  Downey :  The  matter  of  expediency  is  a  two-edged  sword. 
That  is,  what  is  expedient  for  one  body  may  not  be  expedient 
for  another.  We  have  to  consider  getting  this  paper,  or  some 
such  paper,  not  only  through  one  body,  but  through  two  bodies. 
And  very  much  the  same  questions  will  be  asked  in  each  of  the 
Churches,  possibly  from  a  little  different  angle.  In  your  Church 
you  will  be  asked,  "Is  the  minority  protected  ?"  In  our  Church 
the  inquiry  will  be,  "Are  we  tying  ourselves  hand  and  foot  so 
that  there  is  no  possibility  of  ever  getting  away  from  certain  re- 
strictions?" Now,  what  we  are  both  desirous  of,  if  we  adopt 
any  paper,  is  to  adopt  a  paper  that  will  commend  itself  to  the 
judgment  of  both  Churches.  I  am  not  clear  that  I  would  vote 
against  this  if  it  is  deemed  necessary.  I  think  that  we  ought 
not  to  put  in  anything  that  we  do  not  feel  to  be  obligatory,  any- 
thing in  the  way  of  restrictions.  I  would  like  to  ask  some  of 
the  legal  brethren  here  whether  in  putting  in  "including"  here 
and  making  the  Regional  Conferences  a  part  of  the  amending 
body,  we  are  not  giving  them  a  double  vote.  Every  Annual  Con- 
ference votes,  and  the  Regional  Conference  is  composed  of  An- 
nual Conferences.  And  therefore  you  are  giving  to  Annual  Con- 
ferences the  right  to  vote,  and  then  you  are  giving  to  those  same 
Annual  Conference  representatives  in  the  Regional  Conference 
the  right  to  vote.  Are  you  not?  That  vote  will  be  taken  by 
Regional  Conferences.  Would  they  not  vote  in  your  Annual 
Conferences  when  it  went  down?  Would  they  not  vote  in  the 
General  Conference,  and  in  the  Regional  Conferences,  and  in  the 
Annual  Conferences? 


422     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

P.  H.  Linn :  This  is  a  method  of  voting  in  the  General  Con- 
ference. It  is  voting  in  the  General  Conference  in  a  specific 
matter. 

D.  G.  Downey :  That  is  what  I  inquired  about.  That  answers 
my  inquiry.  Then  the  only  question  is  whether,  if  you  change 
"two-thirds"  to  "three-fourths"  of  the  Annual  Conference,  you 
are  not  tying  the  thing  up  pretty  tight. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  confess,  when  the  recommendation  came  in 
this  morning,  my  first  judgment  was  unfavorable  to  it.  But  I 
have  been  asking  myself,  How  will  the  thing  work?  and  after  a 
consideration  of  the  way  the  thing  would  work,  it  seems  to  me 
that  if  this  is  the  thing  desired,  we  are  not  tying  our  hands  unduly 
by  making  this  provision.  That  is  to  say,  this  provides  that 
upon  a  constitutional  question,  as  upon  any  other  question,  the 
vote,  instead  of  being  taken  by  delegates  as  such,  will  be  taken 
by  regional  groups,  and  unless  two-thirds  of  the  regional  groups 
voting  as  such  vote  in  favor,  the  proposition  is  lost.  It  also 
means  that  on  any  such  proposition  it  will  require  the  vote  of 
three  regional  groups  out  of  seven  to  defeat  it.  It  means  to  me 
that  this  is  not  an  unreasonable  request  to  be  made.  Therefore 
I  do  not  see  any  very  serious  objection  to  this  proposition. 

Bishop  Cranston :  We  live  in  a  time  when  Constitutions  are 
really  of  more  value  than  they  have  ever  been  in  the  history  of 
democratic  countries.  There  is  a  lawless  spirit  among  the  people 
of  the  world.  While  they  are  crying  and  praying  for  order,  they 
are  practicing  disorder.  And  the  revolt  against  constitutional 
control  is  second  only,  perhaps,  to  that  agajnst  autocratic  or 
monarchical  control.  In  the  times  in  which  we  are  living,  I 
would  prefer  that  the  matter  should  be  as  is  proposed.  It  can- 
not do  any  hurt.  You  may  be  sure  of  it,  that  any  proposition 
which  commands  popular  approval,  which  will  meet  the  judg- 
ment and  preferences  of  the  ministry  of  the  Church,  the  pastorate 
of  the  Church,  will  go  with  such  power  that  the  difference  be- 
tween these  two  propositions  will  amount  to  very  little. 

C.  A.  Pollock :  I  am  in  favor  of  this  motion.  I  have  my  rea- 
sons therefor.  I  come  from  the  State  of  North  Dakota.  Maybe 
you  have  read  of  it!  We  supposed  that  we  had  a  Constitution 
there,  once.  But  when  a  body  of  Socialists  can  come  within  a 
State  peopled,  as  that  great  State  has  been  peopled,  with  the 
best  people  on  earth,  and  can  with  one  stroke  sweep  your  Con- 
stitution out  of  existence  and  turn  the  whole  State  over  to  the 
power  of  Socialism,  I  say  to  you,  sir,  the  time  has  come  when  we 
want  to  frame  Constitutions  so  that  they  cannot  be  changed  just 
by  every  whiff  of  the  wind.  I  do  not  want  to  begin  to  talk 
about  the  Non-Partisan  League  here.  But  if  you  will  come  out 
on  the  street  I  will  give  you  my  opinion  about  it ! 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  We  are  preparing  here  to  put  into  operation 


Louisville  Meeting 


423 


a  Very  considerable  body  of  legislation  that  is  entirely  new.  And 
it  may  speedily  be  brought  to  its  actual  application.  I  think  that 
instead  of  protecting  our  Constitutions  by  a  superabundance  of 
safeguards  we  sometimes  increase  our  dangers.  I  may  not  be 
advised  as  to  the  situation.  But  as  pretty  generally  agreed  upon 
by  men  who  take  different  views,  the  present  situation  in  the 
State  of  North  Dakota  was  caused  by  the  inability  of  the  peo- 
ple to  get  that  done  which  they  wanted  to  have  done.  The 
danger  that  we  face  here  is  likely  to  be  the  danger  of  making 
it  practically  impossible  to  amend  this  Constitution.  I  think  we 
are  not  so  likely  to  incur  the  danger  of  speedy  rebellion  against 
the  Constitution  as  we  are  to  create  the  rebellion  before  the  Con- 
stitution is  ever  adopted.  Men  are  going  to  look  at  this  process 
and  say,  "If  we  have  got  to  go  to  all  this  trouble  to  change  any 
one  of  these  provisions,  some  of  which  seem  to  us  so  doubtful, 
we  won't  adopt  the  plan  at  all."  A  moment  ago  the  question  was 
as  to  the  analogy  between  our  State  and  national  governments. 
To  amend  the  national  Constitution  there  must  be  a  concurrent 
resolution  of  the  House  and  Senate,  then  the  resolution  must  go 
down  to  the  legislatures  of  the  States.  We  have  not  only  re- 
quired a  process  equivalent  to  that,  but  it  is  possible,  in  this  new 
Church,  supposing  it  to  be  constituted  according  to  this  instru- 
ment that  we  have  here,  for  fifty-one  men  to  block  indefinitely 
the  desire  of  all  the  rest  in  the  Annual  Conference  and  in  the 
General  Conference.  Supposing  there  is  one  region  that  has  its 
exact  one  hundred  members  in  the  General  Conference ;  fifty-one 
members  control  that  region.  And  that  one  region  can  block  all 
the  rest  of  it. 

A  Voice :  O,  no,  it  takes  three  regions. 

Bishop  Ainsworth :  It  would  take  five  regions  to  carry  a  prop- 
osition; but  three  regions  could  block  or  defeat  the  carrying  of 
a  proposition. 

Bishop  Cranston:  Two-thirds  of  the  number  of  the  Regional 
Conferences  voting  as  one  body. 

Bishop  Ainsworth :  That  is  not  the  pending  proposition. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  Our  danger  is  just  what  I  spoke  of  a  little 
while  ago,  whatever  may  be  the  number  required  to  block  action. 
There  has  been  a  fear  that  we  are  erecting  what  one  man  char- 
acterized in  the  discussion  of  this  as  more  of  a  separation  than 
a  real  union.  That  spirit  will  be  increased  by  everything  that 
makes  it  more  difficult  to  change  the  Constitution,  which  we  or- 
dain. I  think  we  ought  to  make  it  not  more  than  ordinarily 
difficult  to  change  the  Constitution.  It  ought  to  be  ordinarily 
difficult,  because  I  do  not  believe  that  a  Constitution  ought  to  be 
changed  with  every  wind  of  sentiment  that  passes  over  a  body. 
This  secures  deliberate  action,  and  suspends  any  action  for  four 


424     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

years.  Therefore  I  believe  we  ought  to  adhere  to  the  original 
language  at  this  point. 

Bishop  Cranston :  A  question  is  made  as  to  the  meaning  of  this 
language.  As  the  delegation  is  constituted,  in  the  thought  that 
I  believe  has  prevailed  up  to  this  time,  the  Regional  Conference 
delegation  would  be  composed  of  the  delegates  to  the  General 
Conference.  Then  you  have  that  delegation  as  applying  to  these 
individuals.  They  are  the  delegation — A,  B,  C,  D,  E,  F,  dele- 
gates from  the  Virginia  Conference,  for  instance.  Now  you 
come  here  and  say,  "These  Regional  delegates  voting  as  one 
body."   The  language  is  not  clear. 

A.  W.  Harris :  I  am  well  persuaded  that  it  is  unwise  to  erect 
voting  requirements  that  depart  very  much  from  the  majority 
rule  in  ordinary  cases.  If  this  proposal  is  necessary  to  make 
this  Constitution  acceptable  to  the  South,  I  am  ready  to  vote  for 
it.  That  reason  alone  would  be  reason  enough  for  me.  But  I 
have  another  consideration  in  mind.  The  public  always  has  one 
great  defense  against  unusual  provision — public  opinion.  In  our 
General  Conference  there  is  a  provision  for  voting  by  orders, 
but  he  who  proposes  a  call  for  this  vote,  does  so  at  his  risk, 
unless  there  is  a  great  majority  in  favor  of  it. 

Bishop  Leete:  Are  we  to  adopt  this  as  a  finished  act? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  Chair  understands  that 
this  is  only  a  tentative  adoption,  and  that  before  anything  is 
finally  adopted  it  is  to  be  adopted  by  each  Commission,  voting 
separately  and  as  a  whole.   You  are  perfecting  the  paper. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  I  want  to  ask  for  an  interpretation  of  this 
Item  4,  with  reference  to  that  vote  that  it  says  must  be  taken  in 
one  body  and  must  be  by  two-thirds  of  the  Regional  Conferences. 
Suppose  that  one  Regional  Conference  votes  for  it  almost  unan- 
imously, and  the  next  one  has  a  minority,  and  the  next  one  has 
fifty  per  cent.  Does  it  seem  a  bare  majority  of  all  the  votes  of 
three  or- four  Regional  Conferences,  a  bare  majority,  is  meant? 
When  we  take  the  vote  of  the  Conferences  throughout  our 
Church,  in  our  Church  it  is  the  aggregate  vote  of  all  the  people 
who  vote. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  was  Chairman  of  the  ad  interim  committee 
and  Dr.  Blake  was  the  Secretary.  I  am  taking  it  for  granted 
that  this  is  the  thing  that  we  adopted  and  that  we  understood 
we  were  adopting.  Certainly  the  thought  in  my  mind  was  that 
it  required  a  concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  the  Regional  dele- 
gations as  delegations. 

P.  H.  Linn:  If  "thereof"  were  stricken  out  and  these  words 
inserted,  "The  members  of  each  delegation  voting  as  one  body," 
would  that  make  it  clear? 

Bishop  Cannon :  Dr.  Blake,  do  you  understand  that  this  is  the 
language  that  we  adopted  ? 


Louisville  Meeting 


425 


Edgar  Blake:  Yes;  but  I  think  Dr.  Linn's  suggestion  will 
improve  it. 

The  vote  was  taken,  and  the  amendment  prevailed. 

P.  H.  Linn:  I  would  ask  if  by  consent  we  can  substitute  the 
words  "of  each  delegation/'  so  that  it  will  read,  "The  members 
of  each  Regional  delegation  voting  as  one  body." 

A  motion  to  this  effect  was  made  and  prevailed. 

Bishop  Cannon :  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  come  to  the  insertion 
of  "three- fourths"  on  page  13,  lines  11  and  17,  in  place  of  "two- 
thirds."  I  will  say  in  reply  to  Mr.  Watt  that  this  is  a  little 
different  from  the  other,  in  that  it  refers  to  the  rights  of  Annual 
Conferences.  As  Dr.  Van  Cleve  said  a  while  ago,  it  is  much 
more  difficult  to  carry  any  constitutional  amendment  through  the 
Annual  Conferences  than  it  is  through  the  General  Conference. 
And  this  would  appeal  to  our  preachers  as  securing  to  them  their 
rights.  Moreover,  we  do  not  think  it  is  an  unusual  request,  be- 
cause we  have  never  had  anything  else  in  our  Church.  It  has 
always  been  three-fourths.  It  was  so  in  yours,  I  think,  until  re- 
cently. We  appeal  for  this  change  on  the  same  basis  that  we  did 
for  the  other.  We  think  it  is  desirable.  We  do  not  think  it  will 
strangle  any  infant  that  ought  to  be  born.  We  will  be  very 
glad  if  you  will  agree  to  this  change. 

Edgar  Blake:  Do  you  think  it  is  absolutely  necessary,  Bishop 
Cannon  ? 

Bishop  Cannon:  I  think  it  would  enable  us  to  secure  the  sup- 
port of  members  of  the  Annual  Conferences  much  more  easily 
if  that  is  the  paper.  I  myself  do  not  personally  care  anything 
about  it,  except  as  a  matter  of  expediency. 

F.  M.  Thomas:  I  think  this  is  the  situation  we  have  to  face. 
When  these  two  Churches  come  together,  their  voting  strength, 
if  I  estimate  it  correctly,  would  be  something  like  two-thirds  and 
one-third.  And  men  would  say,  "Really  the  Constitution  does 
not  protect  you  at  all" ;  and  it  would  be  very  difficult  to  answer 
it.  I  have  no  doubt  that  if  you  put  it  on  the  basis  of  Christian 
love  and  brotherhood,  there  would  be  no  difficulty.  But  when 
men  go  into  a  contract  they  scrutinize  the  stipulations  very  close- 
ly. And  another  thing:  The  part  of  the  Church  from  which  I 
come  is  one  that  has  a  very  delicate  social  situation,  one  that  is 
misunderstood.  And  it  would  feel  that  it  ought  to  be  guarded 
in  a  way;  because  it  is  true,  brethren,  that  we  are  introducing 
into  this  Constitution  some  conceptions  that  are  new  to  large 
sections  of  the  South.  And  the  men  who  would  be  willing  to 
advocate  those  changed  concepts  would  want  a  guarantee  that 
that  change  would  be  protected  for  some  time,  especially  in  an 
atmosphere  where  it  was  not  clearly  and  thoroughly  understood. 
Therefore  it  is  not  a  mere  matter  of  expediency.  It  really,  if 
I  may  say  so,  seems  to  be  in  a  sense  a  matter  of  right. 


426     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


Edgar  Blake :  Mr.  Chairman,  I  move  its  adoption. 
This  motion  was  carried. 

On  motion  of  Bishop  Moore,  the  time  was  extended  until 
5  130  o'clock. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  What  is  the  next  point? 
Bishop  Cannon :  The  next  point  is  the  matter  of  the  Regional 
Conferences. 

The  proposition  to  substitute  the  word  "administrative"  for  the 
word  "legislative"  was  taken  up. 

Bishop  Moore:  If  I  have  understood  the  Chattanooga  sug- 
gestions correctly,  and  the  declarations  of  two  General  Confer- 
ences— one  at  Oklahoma  City,  and  one  at  Saratoga  Springs — 
this  matter  is  one  of  the  basic  principles  upon  which  our  first 
action  was  taken.  I  think  it  is  firmly  written,  decidedly  written, 
specifically  written,  in  the  Chattanooga  suggestions,  that  these 
Regional  Conferences  shall  have  the  right  to  legislate  upon  all 
local  matters.  I  think  it  is  hardly  proper  for  us  at  all,  I  doubt 
very  much  whether  we  are  competent,  to  consider  at  all  a  change 
of  that  word  "legislative"  to  "administrative."  I  think  both 
Commissions  are  bound  by  their  General  Conferences  to  let  that 
word  remain  as  it  is.  Our  brethren  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Commission  have  been  exceedingly  generous  in  their  dealing  with 
us  at  all  times.  But  it  seems  to  me  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  make 
this  change,  in  view  of  the  instructions,  if  not  orders,  that  we 
have  received  from  our  General  Conference. 

D.  G.  Downey :  Would  the  brethren  of  the  Church,  South, 
feel  that  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  have  the  world  "legislative" 
in?  Would  it  suffice  if  it  read,  "subject  to  the  limitations  and 
restrictions  of  this  Constitution,  each  Regional  Conference  shall 
have  full  power  over  all  distinctively  regional  affairs  within  its 
area"? 

C.  M.  Bishop :  In  the  Chattanooga  Conference  it  is  provided 
that  the  General  Conference  shall  have  power  over  all  distinc- 
tively connectional  matters  and  the  Quadrennial  Conferences 
full  power  over  all  distinctively  local  matters. 

D.  G.  Downey:  I  will  move  that  in  Section  3,  line  16,  on  page 
3,  the  word  "legislative"  be  stricken  out.  So  that  it  shall  read, 
"subject  to  the  limitations  and  restrictions  of  this  Constitution, 
each  Regional  Conference  shall  have  full  power  over  all  dis- 
tinctively regional  affairs  within  its  area." 

Edgar  Blake :  Many  of  our  brethren  think  it  would  greatly 
aid  us  in  getting  this  through  our  Church  if  you  will  adopt  Dr. 
Downey's  suggestion. 

Bishop  Denny :  On  all  matters  of  courtesy  I  never  intend  that 
anybody  shall  pass  beyond  the  position  that  I  myself  shall  oc- 
cupy. If  this  were  solely  a  matter  of  courtesy,  I  should  say 
nothing.    If  this  question  had  come  before  the  suggestion  that 


Louisville  Meeting 


427 


"legislative"  be  substituted  by  "administrative/'  it  would  present 
a  different  question  to  you.  But  in  view  of  the  fact  that  "legis- 
lative" was  substituted  by  "administrative,"  with  that  in  the 
record,  to  strike  out  both  terms  is  to  put  a  shadow  on  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  word  "powers"  that  we  cannot  rub  out  by  any 
action  we  may  take,  after  striking  out  that  word  "legislative," 
and  the  fact  that  such  a  significant  word  was  stricken  out  be- 
comes a  vital  point  in  the  interpretation  of  this  Constitution. 
On  page  8  of  the  report  of  the  Commission  on  Unification  to  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
and  as  set  forth  when  we  met  in  Baltimore  and  when  each  Com- 
mission stated  what  it  understood  to  be  basic  principles,  you 
will  find  in  our  statement  these  words,  by  Bishop  Candler,  who 
spoke  for  our  entire  Commission  (and  there  was  no  lack  of 
unanimity.  It  was  unanimous  on  the  point  that  we  were  bound 
within  these  limitations)  :  "In  the  second  place,  we  feel  bound  as 
to  Jurisdictional  Conferences,  that  they  shall  have  their  auton- 
omy, legislating  upon  matters  involved  in  their  own  jurisdiction." 
Now,  if  in  any  way,  without  putting  the  word  "legislative"  into 
the  Constitution,  you  can  involve  the  fact  so  that  legislative  pow- 
ers cannot  be  taken  out,  I  have  no  objection. 

D.  G.  Downey :  Suppose  we  amend  our  original  report  and 
simply  recommend  the  omission  of  the  word  "legislative,"  it 
would  still  leave  "full  power."  It  would  seem  to  me  that  that 
implies  everything  essential. 

Bishop  Denny:  If  you  can  say  that  you  understand  that  you 
are  in  no  way  minimizing  the  power,  but  rather  broadening  it, 
I  am  willing  to  accept  it. 

D.  G.  Downey :  I  think  you  are  perfectly  safe  to  leave  some 
things  to  interpretation. 

Bishop  Denny:  Not  where  there  has  been  a  question  raised. 
I  am  not  trying  to  quibble.  I  am  trying  to  protect.  You  want 
to  make  this  more  pleasing  to  your  constituency.  In  order  to 
do  that,  suppose  the  question  is  raised  among  your  delegates, 
or  members  of  Annual  Conferences,  when  it  comes  before  the 
Annual  Conferences  for  a  vote,  "Does  'power'  include  legisla- 
tion?" 

D.  G.  Downey :  I  would  say  to  them  that  what  is  not  given  to 
the  General  Conference  is  not  prohibited.  You  will  find  that 
the  Regional  Conference  is  only  prohibited  from  legislating  on, 
or  interfering  with,  things  that  are  provided  for  in  the  General 
Conference.  Then  you  have  the  Judicial  Council.  We  are 
pleading  here  for  something  that  will  help  us. 

Bishop  Moore:  May  I  ask  Dr.  Downey  a  question? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  Chair  is  in  complete 
doubt  as  to  who  has  the  floor  or  what  is  before  the  house. 

Bishop  Moore :  Does  Dr.  Downey  regard  the  striking  out  of 


428     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


this  word  "legislative"  as  diminishing  in  any  sense  the  power 
that  is  now  in  the  Regional  Conference? 
D.  G.  Downey :  I  do  not. 

Bishop  Cranston :  It  has  been  said  here  that  the  use  of  the 
word  "legislative"  is  likely  to  contribute  to  what  the  world  is 
sufficiently  supplied  with  now — confusion.  There  is  a  possibil- 
ity of  that  word  being  abused  by  brethren  who  do  not  mean  to 
be  officious  and  yet  are  such  in  spite  of  themselves.  But  they 
are  in  almost  every  Conference.  The  Annual  Conferences  have 
gotten  along  very  well  with  such  authority  as  they  have  had.  The 
word  "legislative"  does  not  attach  to  their  powers,  and  yet  they 
are  really  constitutional  units  of  ecclesiastical  organization. 
There  is  a  possibility  of  these  Conferences,  tempted  by  the  word 
"legislative,"  enacting  contradictory  legislation.  There  is  almost 
an  invitation  in  the  word  to  take  up  things  that  do  not  appertain 
to  the  purpose  of  Regional  Conferences  as  institutions  in  the 
Church.  If  we  were  to  go  before  our  Church  to  advocate  the 
legislative  function  of  the  Regional  Conference,  we  should  be  ad- 
vertising an  opportunity  that  would  only  be  too  readily  welcomed 
by  every  man  who  had  the  seed  of  agitation  in  his  soul.  I  have 
gone  over  this  summary  of  powers  which  it  is  proposed  to  confer 
upon  the  Regional  Conferences,  and  my  judgment  as  to  their 
expected  service  led  me  to  suggest  the  word  "administrative" 
instead  of  "legislative."  I  spoke  to  Dr.  Lamar  at  one  of  our 
previous  meetings,  and  he  agreed  with  me  as  to  the  possible 
confusion  in  legislation  that  might  grow  out  of  the  word  "legis- 
lative." I  felt  confirmed  somehow !  You  see  that  all  the  con- 
firmation I  need  in  some  of  my  convictions  I  can  get  from  my 
brethren  of  the  South!  The  authority  that  you  are  conferring 
upon  the  Regional  Conference  is  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case 
subject  to  existing  charters  and  contracts.  No  power  we  could 
confer  would  change  these.  The  educational  charters  and  those 
by  which  other  institutions  are  founded  and  are  being  conducted, 
all  are  beyond  the  power  of  this  Commission  or  the  General 
Conference  to  change.  Then  what  have  Regional  Conferences 
more  than  Annual  Conferences  to  legislate  about?  I  can  think 
of  nothing  that  requires  legislation  in  the  definite  sense,  to  which 
I  was  alluding  when  I  spoke  of  the  danger  in  it  as  a  standing 
challenge  to  the  busy  minds  of  the  most  prolific  people  in  legisla- 
tion on  the  face  of  the  earth.  Not  the  Methodist  preacher  alto- 
gether. The  Annual  Conference  looks  after  everything  within 
its  ecclesiastical  interest,  though  it  has  no  authority  to  legislate 
distinctively.  The  Regional  Conference  should  in  the  same  sense 
and  way  look  after  everything  that  comes  naturally  under  its 
control.  The  object  of  this  whole  Regional  business  is  not  that 
all  of  us  believe  it  to  be  an  essential  to  our  Methodist  ecclesias- 
tical machinery.    It  is  a  concession  to  a  situation,  to  a  public 


Louisville  Meeting 


429 


opinion  growing  out  of  the  condition  of  things  with  which  we 
have  to  deal.  We  could  get  along  without  it,  just  as  we  have 
got  along  without  other  things  that  many  of  our  good  men  have 
thought  to  be  absolutely  necessary  to  complete  our  Church  ma- 
chinery. Now  I  want  to  assure  you  that  there  is  nothing  in  the 
thought  that  led  to  the  introduction  of  this  proposition  that  is 
in  the  least  degree,  so  far  as  I  know,  intended  to  restrict  the  con- 
trol of  the  Regional  Conference  over  Regional  affairs.  Nothing 
at  all.  We  should  be  better  off  without  the  word  "legislative/' 
If  you  will  be  satisfied  there  with  the  word  "control"  or  the 
words  "full  power/'  we  shall  understand  it.  And  I  think  the 
record  of  what  is  said  here  this  afternoon  will  be  a  sufficient  in- 
terpretation of  our  meaning. 

J.  J.  Wallace :  Let  me  call  your  attention  to  subsection  5,  page 
4:  "No  Regional  Conference  shall,  in  the  exercise  of  the  powers 
provided  herein,  make  rules  or  regulations  contrary  to  or  in  con- 
flict with  any  rule  or  regulation  made  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence for  the  government  and  control  of  the  connectional  affairs 
of  the  Church."  The  Regional  Conference  is  inhibited  as  to 
certain  rules  and  regulations,  and  it  is  implied  that  it  may  make 
rules  and  regulations.  The  Constitution  of  the  General  Confer- 
ences of  both  Churches  declares  that  the  General  Conference 
shall  have  full  power  to  make  rules  and  regulations.  Nobody 
questions  that  power.  By  this  document,  power  is  conferred 
upon  the  Regional  Conference  to  make  rules  and  regulations  ex- 
cept as  provided  in  this  restriction. 

D.  G.  Downey's  amendment  was  adopted. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  next  matter  is  this, 
that  lines  4  to  9  on  page  6  be  so  phrased  as  to  secure  to  the  pres- 
ent colored  membership  full  proportionate  representation  in  the 
General  Conference. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  think  perhaps  I  ought  to  make  a  statement, 
as  my  name  was  called  in  Bishop  McDowell's  speech  with  refer- 
ence to  this  matter.  At  the  Cleveland  meeting,  in  discussing  the 
report  which  was  brought  in  by  the  Committee  of  Reference 
there,  I  think  I  made  substantially  this  statement.  I  said  that  I 
realized  the  situation,  or  the  condition  in  which  the  brethren  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  found  themselves.  They  had 
a  certain  number  of  negro  members  in  their  Church.  They 
cannot  ask  those  members  to  retire  from  the  Church.  They  can 
hardly  ask  the  present  membership  to  agree  to  a  curtailment  of 
their  rights  in  the  Church  and  their  representation  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference.  And  moreover  they  might  be  confronted  by 
a  protest,  which  might  even  take  legal  form,  if  there  was  an  at- 
tempt made  to  curtail  the  rights  and  privileges  of  those  mem- 
bers. And  I  have  said  I  recognized  the  embarrassment  under 
which  we  place  our  Northern  brethren.   And  for  myself,  I  said 


430     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


that  I  was  not  a  stickler  as  to  the  percentage,  provided  the  per- 
centage was  declared,  whether  five  or  five  and  a  half  or  six  per 
cent.  I  said  that  I  thought  we  should  come  to  an  agreement  as 
to  what  percentage  should  be  given  the  present  colored  member- 
ship in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  should  so  shape 
our  action  as  to  prevent  any  embarrassment.  At  the  meeting  of 
our  Commission  yesterday  I  raised  that  same  point,  and  said 
that  I  did  not  see  how  there  could  be  any  question  in  the  courts, 
any  appeal  by  the  colored  membership,  provided  the  rights  of 
representation  of  the  present  membership  in  the  General  Confer- 
ence were  not  curtailed.  Now,  I  do  think  it  would  be  a  mistake 
to  write  into  this  paper  language  which  would  say  "proportion- 
ate representation."  We  have  carefully  avoided  that  in  this  ad 
interim  report.  We  have  shaped  up  this  report  so  that  there  are 
three  kinds  of  Regional  Conferences.  And  we  have  endeavored 
to  use  similar  language  in  reference  to  representation  in  the 
General  Conference.  We  have  said  that  every  Regional  Con- 
ference of  white  membership  should  have  not  less  than  100, 
provided  that  no  Regional  Conference  should  have  more  than 
twenty  per  cent.  We  have  said  that  the  Regional  Conference 
for  colored  members  should  have  not  less  than  30  or  more  than 
42,  provided  that  at  no  time  should  the  representation  exceed 
five  per  cent ;  and  the  foreign  representation  to  be  the  same.  We 
have  carried  out  the  general  thought.  Now,  I  have  no  objection 
personally  to  any  shaping  of  this  which  will  relieve  the  embar- 
rassment of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  will  provide 
for  all  the  colored  membership  in  that  Church  to-day,  in  order 
just  to  meet  that  situation ;  with  the  distinct  limitation,  percent- 
age limitation,  as  to  representation  in  the  General  Conference, 
and  also  with  the  limitation  beyond  which  it  cannot  go  in  num- 
bers. If  it  turned  out  to  be  42  or  43  or  44,  I  am  willing  to 
meet  the  situation,  the  status  to-day;  but  not  in  any  way  chang- 
ing the  position  which,  as  you  all  know,  I  held  at  Cleveland  and 
Richmond,  that  we  had  considered  that  the  arrangement,  which 
has  been  made,  which  was  made  by  this  ad  interim  committee, 
is  in  principle  the  only  arrangement,  perhaps,  which  the  Southern 
Commission  can  report  to  its  General  Conference. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Will  you  permit  the  Chair 
to  make  a  suggestion  which  would  be  of  interest  to  him?  Let 
your  provision  read  as  follows,  beginning  at  line  7,  page  6 :  "Pro- 
vided, that  the  present  colored  membership  shall  have  full  pro- 
portionate representation  in  the  General  Conference,  and  pro- 
vided also  that  the  number  of  delegates  from  such  Regional 
Jurisdiction  shall  not  exceed  five  per  cent  of  the  total  member- 
ship of  the  General  Conference.'' 

P.  H.  Linn:  It  seems  to  me  it  would  be  far  preferable  to 
keep  our  report  in  the  form  that  we  have  here.    If  I  understand 


Louisville  Meeting 


431 


the  attitude  of  the  brethren  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
Commission,  they  simply  want  to  change  the  figures  so  as  to 
take  care  of  the  present  colored  membership. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  understand  that  there  is  no  difference  of  opin- 
ion among  us  at  this  point — namely,  that  the  present  colored 
membership  of  our  Church  shall  have  representation  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  proportionate  to  their  present  membership, 
which  is  about  five  per  cent,  speaking  approximately.  I  have  a 
little  doubt  in  my  mind  as  to  the  wisdom  of  writing  this  term 
"proportionate  representation"  into  a  Constitution.  Personally, 
I  think  we  need  to  go  back  to  the  provision  which  we  had  once, 
the  provision  which  takes  the  minimum  and  maximum  member- 
ship of  the  General  Conference.  We  had  a  provision  that  the 
General  Conference  shall  consist  of  not  less  than  650  nor  more 
than  850  delegates.  I  think  we  have  got  to  go  back  to  some  pro- 
vision of  that  kind.  Mark  you,  not  for  the  sake  of  our  colored 
delegates,  but  for  the  sake  of  avoiding  an  undue  increase  of  the 
membership  of  the  General  Conference.  Now,  if  you  will  in- 
troduce into  that  provision  that  the  General  Conference  shall  con- 
sist of  not  less  than  650  nor  more  than  850  ministerial  and  lay 
delegates  in  equal  numbers,  as  the  General  Conference  may  de- 
termine— if  you  will  insert  that,  and  then  over  here  provide, 
"of  not  less  than  32  and  not  more  than  42"  (five  per  cent  respec- 
tively of  650  and  850  members),  that  deals  with  the  thing  in 
clear  and  specific  fashion.  If  you  write  into  the  Constitution 
"proportionate  representation,"  that  will  involve  us  in  trouble. 

At  this  point  the  time  was  extended  indefinitely. 

I.  G.  Penn :  In  every  speech  I  have  heard  made  this  afternoon 
concerning  these  changes,  the  appeal  has  been  made  by  one  side 
or  the  other  that  these  changes  be  made  that  you  may  be  able  to 
carry  with  the  people  of  the  two  Churches.  Now,  brethren,  I 
have  been  profoundly  gratified  for  what  to  me  and  to  my  people 
is  a  great  concession  on  the  part  of  the  Commission  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South,  as  written  in  this  statement  and, 
as  I  understand,  agreed  to,  compared  with  the  position  which 
we  had  at  Baltimore.  At  Baltimore  you  proposed  that  we  should 
occupy  only  an  independent  relationship.  And,  as  I  remember, 
very  little  was  said  concerning  our  remaining  in  the  united 
Church  at  all ;  and  any  proposition  that  might  be  considered  lib- 
eral was  only  this,  that  we  should  keep  some  kind  of  intimate 
relation  between  the  colored  people  and  the  white  people — a 
nexus.  You  moved  out  from  that  until  you  considered  the  ne- 
gro in  the  relation  of  a  missionary  jurisdiction.  We  objected  to 
the  term  "missionary."  I  think  that  was  wise,  because  the  col- 
ored people  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  overnight  have 
come  to  self-support  in  this  Centenary  matter,  so  that  we  have 
put  into  the  coffers  of  the  Church  within  six  months  three  times 


432     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

as  much  money  as  we  raised  for  the  eight  Boards  in  one  year 
prior  to  that  time.  Then  in  that  memorable  debate  as  Savannah 
you  proposed — I  was  not  surprised  to  hear  Dr.  Lamar  say  that 
that  debate  will  cover  600  pages  of  the  volume.  And  I  think 
if  the  negro  people  should  be  given  to  understand  that  they  can 
procure  that  volume  they  will  be  glad  to  read  600  pages,  com- 
ing from  the  North  and  the  South,  dealing  with  the  negro.  You 
proposed  at  Savannah  that  we  have  ten  delegates  in  the  General 
Conference.  Then  you  proposed  that  there  should  be  a  manda- 
tory provision  that  when  we  reached  400,000  members  we  must 
(or  "you  shall")  organize  an  Associate  General  Conference. 
We  left  there  and  came  on  to  St.  Louis.  At  St.  Louis  the  ques- 
tion of  proportionate  representation  in  the  General  Conference 
for  the  present  membership  of  the  Church  was  before  us.  Now, 
you  have  moved  out  from  that  position  until  you  come  here  to- 
day, giving  us  what  I  understand  to  be  proportionate  represen- 
tation; and  Bishop  Cannon  is  entirely  right — I  want  to  thank 
him  for  his  statement  of  the  position — he  is  entirely  right  in 
saying  that  you  have  done  nothing  but  what  is  safe  and  just 
to  the  colored  membership  now  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  when  you  give  them  proportionate  representation.  I 
count  these  three  big  concessions,  that  I  never  thought  you  would 
make.  I  am  mighty  glad  that  you  are  big  enough  to  make 
them.  But  let  me  say  that  the  five  per  cent  is  on  there,  and  is 
really  giving  us  some  trouble  in  dealing  with  this  matter  with 
our  people.  You  must  face  the  fact  that  in  putting  the  five  per 
cent  on  you  have  put  an  estop  to  the  growth  of  the  negro  mem- 
bership of  the  reorganized  Church.  And  it  is  not  going  to  be 
an  easy  thing  to  go  to  the  colored  people  and  have  them  accept 
this  proposition  with  this  kind  of  a  rider.  And  yet  I  want  to 
say  that  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  vote  in  this  body  that  this 
shall  go  down  to  the  Conferences;  for  I  am  anxious  that  not 
only  my  people  shall  have  a  chance  to  face  it,  but  that  your 
people  shall  have  a  chance  to  face  the  matter  of  equal  negro 
representation  in  the  highest  legislative  body  of  the  largest 
Church  on  earth.  But  you  will  make  it  easier  for  us  as  we  take 
this  matter  down  to  our  people  if  you  will  state  it  in  such  a 
way  that  the  people  will  not  have  to  work  arithmetic  in  order 
to  know  that  they  have  got  proportional  representation.  If  we 
can  phrase  it  some  way  like  this,  that  "you  shall  have  so  many 
delegates  for  so  many  members" — say  one  for  14,000,  if  you 
should  use  the  same  figures  under  (b)  as  under  (a) — so  that 
they  shall  see  that  it  is  the  same  thing  that  is  used  for  our  white 
people,  it  will  be  all  right.  Anything  to  make  it  clear  that  the 
representation  is  really  proportionate.  I  am  inclined  to  think 
that  Bishop  Mouzon's  suggestion  will  help  our  people  to  see 
that  this  is  proportionate  representation.    But  before  this  matter 


Louisville  Meeting 


433 


is  over,  before  the  final  vote  is  taken,  I  shall  want  to  enter  into 
the  record  an  explanation  of  my  vote,  in  the  light  of  the  five 
per  cent  proposition.  With  this  I  hope  you  will  clear  this  thing 
in  some  such  way  as  suggested  by  Bishop  Mouzon,  so  that  the 
people  may  see,  without  having  to  work  a  whole  arithmetic,  that 
this  thing  is  proportionate  representation. 

F.  M.  Thomas :  I  regret  that  Bishop  McDowell  is  not  here, 
because  I  wish  to  speak  concerning  the  action  of  the  Committee 
of  Fourteen  at  Richmond.  I  think  all  the  gentlemen  present 
will  bear  me  out  that  when  we  were  discussing  this  very  delicate 
matter,  and  for  a  time  it  seemed  that  it  would  be  impossible  to 
reach  any  conclusion,  he  said  this  (I  hope  I  quote  him  correct- 
ly) :  "Brethren,  it  seems  we  will  simply  have  to  arrive  at  a 
solution  the  best  we  can  and  let  people  interpret  it  as  they  will." 
Brethren,  I  am  satisfied,  after  hearing  all  the  discussion  concern- 
ing this  very  delicate  problem,  that  if  you  solve  this  problem  in 
any  way,  you  have  got  to  solve  it  somewhat  in  the  way  the  Com- 
mittee of  Fourteen  solves  it.  If  you  begin  to  write  one  way  or 
the  other,  you  write  the  whole  thing  out.  I  am  willing,  as  I 
have  always  been,  to  have  more  light.  But  I  am  not  going  to 
vote  in  any  way  to  change  that  unless  it  is  so  very  carefully 
drawn  that  it  does  not  disturb  that  idea.  I  want  to  say  very 
frankly,  and  I  say  it  in  all  kindness  (it  is  a  deep  conviction  of 
my  life),  that  I  do  not  believe  in  proportionate  representation; 
though  I  am  willing  and  was  willing,  in  writing  in  that  addi- 
tion there,  to  allow  the  present  colored  membership  in  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  to  have  a  representation  that  was  prac- 
tically equal  to  proportionate  representation.  But  I  think  you 
have  got  to  draw  that  thing  carefully  so  that  it  will  not  prove 
a  boomerang.  As  I  remarked  at  Richmond,  the  matter  was  as 
delicately  balanced  as  an  egg  on  its  point.  I  appreciate  to  the 
full  the  position  of  Dr.  Penn  and  Dr.  Jones.  May  God  bless 
them  and  bless  us  all !  As  I  have  said  time  and  time  again,  I 
am  in  favor  of  every  race  coming  to  its  full,  and  want  to  do 
everything  to  bring  it  to  its  full — and  some  men  have  come  to 
the  full,  thank  God.  But  we  are  dealing  with  the  most  delicate 
matter  that  ever  confronted  a  people  in  the  history  of  the  world. 
Personally  I  do  not  believe — I  am  willing  to  be  shown,  but  I  do 
not  believe — you  can  get  very  far  beyond  that  statement. 

P.  H.  Linn :  It  seems  to  me  our  embarrassment  all  along  has 
been  through  a  failure  to  understand  the  position  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church?  and  through  the  fact  that  in  this  par- 
ticular matter  we  are  proceeding  in  a. .different  form  from  what 
we  did  in  the  others  when  we  proceeded  under  a  definite  motion. 
I  am  sure  these  brethren  are  prepared  to  make  a  motion.  And 
I  believe  the  motion  they  intended  to  propose  will  be  quite  ac- 
28 


434     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


ceptable  to  us  if  we  can  just  get  them  to  state  it.  This  is  the 
only  thing  upon  which  we  have  not  had  a  definite  motion. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Your  point  of  order  is  well 
taken. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  do  not  now  speak  for  our  Commission,  but  on 
my  own  responsibility.  I  move  that  line  25,  bottom  of  page  5, 
be  amended  by  inserting  after  the  words  "the  General  Confer- 
ence" the  words,  "shall  consist  of  not  less  than  650  nor  more  than 
850,"  etc.  If  that  is  adopted,  I  would  move  to  amend  line  4  of 
page  6  by  substituting  "32"  for  "30"  and  "42"  for  "40,"  so  that 
it  will  read:  "(b)  Of  not  less  than  32  nor  more  than  42  minis- 
terial and  lay  delegates  in  equal  numbers,  chosen,  in  such  num- 
ber and  in  such  manner  as  the  General  Conference  may  deter- 
mine, from  the  Colored  Regional  Jurisdiction  in  the  United 
States;  provided,  that  the  number  of  delegates  from  said  Re- 
gional Jurisdiction  shall  not  exceed  five  per  cent  of  the  total 
membership  of  the  General  Conference."  Having  thus  stated 
the  case,  I  desire  to  move  that  we  amend  by  inserting  in  line 
25,  page  5,  after  the  words  "General  Conference,"  the  words 
"shall  consist  of  not  less  than  650  nor  more  than  850  ministerial 
and  lay  delegates  in  equal  numbers  as  the  General  Conference 
may  determine,  and  shall  be  composed  as  follows." 

This  motion  prevailed. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  now  desire  to  move  that  we  amend  line  4, 
page  6,  by  substituting  "32"  for  "30,"  and  "42"  for  "40,"  so 
that  it  will  read  as  stated  above. 

R.  E.  Jones :  I  have  much  preferred  a  statement  that  would 
cover  what  Bishop  Cannon  said,  or  take  the  amendment  offered 
by  Bishop  Mouzon.  I  think  both  those  statements  get  at  what 
we  want,  without  involving  us  in  an  uncertainty.  The  propo- 
sition that  Dr.  Blake  offers  leaves  it  entirely  so  that  the  repre- 
sentation of  the  colored  membership  may  be  32  arbitrarily,  may 
be  42  arbitrarily.  I  do  not  know  that  five  per  cent  is  the  pro- 
portionate representation  in  the  General  Conference.  There 
is  no  way  to  find  that  out  until  we  have  officially  before  us  the 
membership  of  the  Church,  South,  the  membership  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  and  the  official  report  of  our  own  colored 
membership.  In  our  own  colored  membership  we  have  Confer- 
ences and  we  have  Churches  in  white  Conferences;  so  that  we 
would  want  an  official  tabulation  of  the  colored  membership  in 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  know  exactly  what  the  pro- 
portional representation  we  are  entitled  to  is.  I  can  see  that  it 
is  entirely  possible,  with  what  Dr.  Blake  proposed,  that  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  may  fix  a  representation  less  than  our  due  rep- 
resentation at  this  time.  What  I  understand  you  intend  to  do 
is  that  we  shall  have  representation  that  is  due  to  us  at  this 
time;  that  the  five  per  cent  shall  be  put  in  to  prohibit  any  in- 


Louisville  Meeting 


435 


crease  to  that  representation.  If  it  is  four  per  cent,  that  is  the 
thing  to  do;  if  it  takes  five  and  one-half  per  cent  to  do  that,  that 
is  the  thing  we  want.  I  think  there  is  no  difference  of  opinion 
as  to  what  we  are  trying  to  do  if  you  want  to  give  representa- 
tion to  the  membership  as  it  is.  We  intend  to  agree  to  a  figure 
that  shall  fix  that  representation  so  that  it  shall  not  be  beyond 
that  at  any  time  in  the  history  of  the  Church.  My  point  is  that 
I  do  not  know  that  five  per  cent  meets  it.  I  rather  think  it  does 
not.  I  much  prefer  Bishop  Mouzon's  or  Bishop  Cannon's  prop- 
osition to  Dr.  Blake's. 

A.  W.  Harris :  It  is  important  to  be  quite  clear  on  what  we 
intend  to  grant,  and  in  the  statement  I  suppose  that  we  have 
an  understanding  that  the  negro  membership,  as  it  now  is,  shall 
have  full  proportionate  representation.  Does  that  representa- 
tion require  five  or  six  per  cent?  We  ought  not  to  write  in  a 
percentage  until  it  has  been  carefully  determined.  In  the  next 
place,  there  is  the  possibility  of  misunderstanding  in  regard  to  the 
phrasing  of  the  proposal  made  by  Dr.  Blake.  I  refer  to  line  4, 
on  page  6,  "of  not  less  than  30  (changed  to  32)  nor  more  than 
40  (changed  to  42)  ministerial  and  lay  delegates  in  such  num- 
ber as  the  General  Conference  may  determine."  That  phrase 
might  be  interpreted  to  allow  the  General  Conference  to  fix  the 
negro  representation  at  any  number  within  these  limits — 32  and 
42 — without  regard  to  proportionate  representation.  The  lan- 
guage ought  to  be  so  clear  that  it  will  say  exactly  what  we  mean 
to  say.  I  move  that  this  matter  be  referred  to  a  small  committee 
to  study  the  statement  and  report  to  us.  It  seems  to  me  that 
we  know  what  we  want. 

This  motion  was  seconded. 

Bishop  Denny :  I  have  no  objection  to  the  amendment,  but  I 
have  objection  to  what  underlies  it.  I  do  not  believe  at  all  in 
what  is  covered  by  the  suggestion  of  the  ad  interim  committee, 
what  is  proposed  by  the  amendment  of  Dr.  Blake.  I  shall  not 
attempt  to  make  a  speech  or  an  argument.  I  simply  want  to 
make  some  suggestions,  which  could  be  elaborated.  I  am  op- 
posed to  it  in  the  interests  of  the  negro,  first.  What  negro  are 
you  caring  for,  brethren?  The  handful  in  your  own  Church. 
Is  there  any  interest  in  any  other  negro  that  lies  outside?  Are 
we  under  obligations  solely  to  303,000,  or  whatever  may  be 
the  number  of  negroes  in  your  own  Church  or  in  the  two  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Churches?  Can  we  go  before  the  world  and  say 
we  have  no  interest  in  any  other  negroes?  I  am  not  willing  to 
do  it.  I  will  not  elaborate  that.  I  simply  want  to  indicate  the 
position  that  I  have  taken  all  along,  and  taken  after  very  care- 
ful thought.  And  I  perhaps  represent,  also,  the  view  of  some 
members  of  our  own  Commission.  In  the  next  place,  our  Com- 
mission, when  we  met  in  Baltimore,  called  attention  to  the  state- 


436     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

ment  that  was  unanimously  adopted  by  our  Commissioners,  that 
we  should  make  full  recognition  of  a  race  consciousness.  And 
what  you  are  doing  in  this  is  actually  to  rub  out  race  conscious- 
ness. Brethren,  the  white  race  attained  its  present  position  by 
learning  by  its  mistakes.  There  is  no  question  about  the  history 
there.  We  were  put  on  our  own  feet.  The  whole  difficulty 
in  connection  with  the  Church's  relation  to  the  negro  is,  you 
are  keeping  him  on  a  crutch.  You  are  not  throwing  him  on  his 
own  resources.  You  are  making  him  a  dependent,  and  propos- 
ing to  keep  him  a  dependent  perpetually.  No  race  can  advance 
to  its  full  development  on  such  a  basis  as  that.  I  am  opposed  to 
that  whole  system,  in  the  interest  of  the  negro.  I  do  not  believe 
we  shall  be  doing  the  best  we  can  do  for  the  white  people  on 
this  basis.  We  have  had  to  face  this  in  the  South.  I  am  very 
well  aware  that  many  of  you  think  we  have  been  actuated  by 
prejudice.  We  have  been  lectured  by  men  who  do  not  seem 
to  be  able  to  understand  the  position  that  we  have  taken.  John 
Wesley  says,  "If  you  wish  people  to  understand  that  you  are 
sincere,  proclaim  it  and  show  it."  We  have  been  sincere.  WTe 
have  had  an  extremely  difficult  situation  to  face,  such  a  situa- 
tion as  no  other  people  on  earth  has  ever  faced,  so  far  as  I  know. 
Would  it  have  been  for  the  benefit  of  the  people  among  whom 
I  was  born  and  reared  that  we  should  turn  over  the  manage- 
ment of  all  that  concerns  political  and  social  and  religious  life 
to  a  people  who  were  not  qualified  to  take  leadership  in  it?  That 
never  has  been  the  case,  and  is  not  the  case  to-day.  That  was 
attempted  in  Church  and  State  during  the  bitterness  that  not 
unnaturally  grew  up  out  of  the  war.  All  the  intelligence  in  the 
South  was  disfranchised,  all  the  ignorance  was  enfranchised. 
And  the  attempt  was  made  to  conduct  the  government  on  that 
basis.  It  could  not  be  done.  It  never  will  be  done,  not  while 
you  and  I  belong  to  the  people  in  whose  race  we  have  been  born 
and  reared  and  developed.  You  say  this  is  unjust!  No,  breth- 
ren !  Time  and  time  again  recently  I  have  had  to  go  before 
my  negro  brethren  in  Richmond — you  will  forgive  this  personal 
reference;  I  like  to  keep  my  personality  as  far  back  as  I  can. 
The  responsibility  of  membership  on  the  State  Council  of  De- 
fense was  laid  on  me.  And  because  the  negroes  of  the  commu- 
nity in  which  I  live  had  expressed  their  confidence  in  me,  I 
was  always  made  the  spokesman,  and  sometimes  the  only  spokes- 
man, in  our  relation  to  the  negro.  I  had  to  go  to  them  again 
and  again  and  say,  "We  cannot  do  what  ought  to  be  done  with- 
out your  cooperation.  We  need  it  and  we  ask  it."  On  one  of 
those  occasions  one  of  the  brethren  said,  "You  cannot  settle 
this.  We  do  not  feel  we  are  treated  justly."  I  said,  "How?" 
He  said,  "We  are  not  represented  on  that  Council  of  Defense." 
My  reply  was,  "Are  you  certain  that  you  understand  the  words 


Louisville  Meeting 


437 


you  use?"  He  said,  "I  think  I  do."  "Then,"  I  said,  "justice 
is  the  concession  of  rights.  Has  any  of  us  a  right  to  office? 
If  I  have  a  right  to  office,  this  State  has  been  unjust  to  me.  I 
have  not  been  sent  to  Congress;  I  have  classmates  there.  I 
have  never  been  sent  to  the  Senate;  I  have  classmates  there. 
I  have  never  been  given  a  political  office.  Have  I  the  right 
to  say  to  the  people  among  whom  I  live,  'You  have  not  been  just 
to  me  because  you  have  not  put  me  in  official  position'?"  A 
little  careful  thought  would  settle  some  of  these  things.  I  do 
not  believe  you  are  meeting  the  need  of  the  negro  himself.  I 
do  not  believe  you  are  meeting  the  need  of  the  white  people.  I 
do  not  believe  it  is  best  for  either  race.  I  do  not  like  the  nar- 
rowness in  which  you  are  viewing  the  negro.  I  do  not  believe 
this  ought  to  be  done.  I  think  it  ought  not  to  carry.  And  I 
put  myself  primarily  on  the  basis  of  the  unanimous  statement 
made  in  Baltimore  that  we  could  go  no  further  than  to  provide 
for  race  consciousness.  And  we  have  not  done  it.  We  are  try- 
ing to  wipe  it  out. 

J.  R.  Pepper:  It  seems  to  me  if  we  would  leave  out  "40"  in 
the  fourth  line,  it  would  meet  the  situation.  Leave  out  the  words 
"in  such  number." 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Elsewhere  the  same  phrase 
occurs  applying  to  the  white  Regional  Conferences. 

J.  R.  Pepper:  It  seems  to  me  the  number  is  easily  arrived  at 
when  we  say  "five  per  cent  of  650  or  850." 

Rolla  V.  Watt :  I  call  for  the  question. 

A.  W.  Harris  suggested,  with  reference  to  his  recent  motion, 
that  a  committee  of  four  be  appointed  by  the  Chair. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  desire  to  make  two  motions  and  ask  that  the 
motions  be  referred  to  a  subcommittee.  I  think  we  are  getting 
to  that  point  now  where  we  need  certain  committees  at  work. 
And  they  ought  to  be  appointed  now,  that  they  may  meet  to- 
morrow, if  desirable.  I  move  that  a  committee  be  appointed  to 
consider  and  harmonize  the  Articles  of  Faith  and  General  Rules 
of  the  two  Churches,  and  report  concerning  the  same  at  the 
present  session  of  the  Joint  Commission.  This  committee  shall 
also  consider  and  report  upon  a  name  for  the  reunited  Church. 
It  shall  also  prepare  and  present  a  suitable  preamble  for  the 
proposed  Constitution.  These  are  matters  that  ought  to  be  re- 
ceiving consideration.  I  move  that  a  committee  be  appointed 
at  this  time  to  consider  these  items;  I  would  say,  a  committee 
of  six — three  from  each  Commission. 

This  motion  was  seconded. 

Bishop  Moore:  I  wish  much  that  Dr.  Blake  would  separate 
the  work  assigned  there.  I  think  if  he  would  put  one  committee 
at  the  work  of  writing  the  preamble — that  is,  of  framing  up  that 


438     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


which  will  be  the  introduction  to  what  we  might  call  the  Articles 
of  Agreement — that  would  be  ample  work  for  that  committee. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  will  withhold  the  last  item,  then,  and  make  a 
separate  motion  for  that. 

Dr.  Blake  renewed  the  first  item  of  his  twofold  motion  just 
stated,  and  it  was  adopted. 

Then,  on  Dr.  Blake's  motion,  a  committee  of  six  was  ap- 
pointed to  prepare  and  present  a  suitable  preamble  for  the  pro- 
posed Constitution. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  desire  to  offer  the  following,  and  to  move 
its  reference  to  a  subcommittee  for  consideration.  These,  I 
think,  are  very  vital  matters  that  must  have  our  consideration 
and  must  be  matters  of  agreement.  We  have  not  given  any  con- 
sideration to  them  at  all.  I  am  going  to  make  the  following 
motion  and  move  its  reference,  in  order  that  these  matters  come 
before  us : 

The  Commissioners  representing  the  Methodist  Church  and  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South,  in  submitting  the  proposed  Constitution 
for  a  reunited  Church,  make  the  following  recommendations  to  our  re- 
spective General  Conferences,  which  recommendations  shall  constitute  a 
part  of  the  agreement  for  the  reunion  of  the  two  Churches : 

1.  That  a  Joint  Commission  composed  of  twenty-five  members  from 
each  of  the  two  Churches  be  created  which  shall  be  authorized  and  in- 
structed to  fix  the  time  and  place  for  the  first  session  of  the  General  Con- 
ference of  the  reunited  Church,  and  to  make  any  other  arrangements  neces  - 
sary to  the  meeting  of  that  body. 

The  first  session  of  the  General  Conference  shall  be  held  within  twelve 
months  after  the  final  approval  and  adoption  of  the  proposed  Constitu- 
tion of  the  reunited  Church. 

When  the  date  has  been  fixed  by  the  proposed  Joint  Commission,  the 
bishops  shall  be  notified  of  the  same  and  shall  issue  the  official  call  for 
the  first  session  of  the  General  Conference  in  harmony  therewith. 

2.  The  first  session  of  the  General  Conference  shall  be  composed  of 
one  ministerial  and  one  lay  delegate  from  each  Annual  Conference  of 
the  reunited  Church  for  each  thousand  Church  members  in  full  con- 
nection, or  fraction  of  two-thirds  thereof,  provided  that  each  Annual 
Conference  shall  be  entitled  to  one  ministerial  and  one  lay  delegate. 

3.  Pending  the  meeting  of  the  first  General  Conference  each  Church 
shall  be  governed  by  the  rules  and  regulations  of  its  own  Discipline,  ex- 
cept as  herein  otherwise  agreed  upon. 

4.  Annual  Conferences  having  membership  in  two  or  more  Regional 
Jurisdictions  shall  be  considered  as  being  a  part  of  and  belonging  to  that 
jurisdiction  in  which  the  largest  number  of  its  members  reside;  provided 
that  this  shall  apply  only  to  the  meeting  of  the  first  General  Conference. 

5.  The  General  Conference  at  its  first  session  shall  appoint  a  Commis- 
sion made  up  of  an  equal  number  of  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  who  shall  consider 
and  report  to  the  next  ensuing  General  Conference  for  its  action  a  plan 
for  the  coordination  and  correlation  of  the  publishing  interests  of  the 
two  Churches. 

Pending  the  report  of  said  Commission,  and  action  thereon  by  the 
General  Conference,  the  publishing  interests  shall  be  continued  as  at 
present  constituted  or  as  they  may  be  constituted  by  their  respective  Gen- 


Louisville  Meeting 


439 


eral  Conferences.  But  those  in  authority  over  said  publishing  interests 
shall  be  instructed  to  make  every  reasonable  effort  to  correlate  and  unify 
their  several  activities  in  so  far  as  it  may  be  possible  and  practicable  to  do 
so  by  administrative  measures.  The  dividends  of  the  publishing  interests 
of  the  two  Churches  shall  be  united  and  distributed  as  one  fund  among 
the  retired  preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children,  of  the  reorgan- 
ized Church. 

6.  The  General  Conference  at  its  first  session  shall  appoint  a  Commis- 
sion made  up  of  an  equal  number  of  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  who  shall  consider 
and  report  to  the  next  ensuing  General  Conference  for  its  action  a  plan 
for  the  reorganization,  coordination,  and  correlation  of  the  connectional 
missionary,  educational,  and  benevolent  Boards  and  Societies  of  the  two 
Churches. 

Pending  the  report  of  said  Commission,  and  action  thereon  by  the 
General  Conference,  the  several  Boards  and  Societies  shall  be  continued 
as  at  present  constituted  or  as  they  may  be  constituted  by  their  respective 
General  Conferences. 

But  those  in  authority  over  said  Boards  and  Societies  shall  be  in- 
structed to  make  every  reasonable  effort  to  correlate  and  unify  the  activi- 
ties of  those  Boards  and  Societies  having  similar  objectives,  in  so  far  as 
it  may  be  possible  and  practicable  to  do  so  by  administrative  measures. 

7.  The  General  Conference  at  its  first  session  shall  appoint  a  Commis- 
sion made  up  of  an  equal  number  of  members  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  who  shall  con- 
sider and  report  to  the  next  ensuing  General  Conference,  for  its  action, 
a  plan  or  plans  for  the  proper  safeguarding  and  control  of  the  permanent 
funds  and  properties  of  the  two  Churches,  not  otherwise  provided  for. 

Pending  the  report  of  said  Commission  and  action  thereon  by  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  said  funds  and  properties  shall  be  supervised  and  con- 
trolled as  at  present,  or  as  they  may  be  supervised  and  controlled  by  the 
action  of  their  respective  General  Conferences. 

8.  The  General  Conference  at  its  first  session  shall  appoint  a  Commis- 
sion made  up  of  an  equal  number  of  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  who  shall  be  au- 
thorized and  instructed  to  investigate  the  matter  of  Annual  Conference 
boundaries  and  their  proper  readjustment,  and  who  shall  advise  with  the 
proper  authorities  concerning  the  same. 

I  move  the  reference  of  these  recommendations  to  a  committee 
of  ten,  five  from  each  Commission. 

This  motion  was  seconded  and  carried. 

A  Voice :  I  raise  the  question  as  to  raising  these  committees. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  I  take  it  for  granted  it  is 
to  be  done  by  the  respective  Commissions. 

Bishop  Mouzon  announced  the  committee  touching  the  repre- 
sentation of  the  colored  membership  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  reorganized  Church,  as  follows:  Edgar  Blake, 
A.  W.  Harris,  Bishop  Cannon,  P.  H.  Linn.  Dr.  Joy  was  later 
substituted  for  Dr.  Blake. 

Bishop  Moore :  I  think  it  would  be  very  well  if  we  had  a  com- 
mittee, or  else  let  one  of  these  committees  act,  to  formulate  for 
us  some  statement  regarding  an  invitation  to  the  Methodist 
Protestant  Church  or  any  other  Churches  that  might  wish  to 


44°     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


unite  with  us  in  this  matter.  I  move  a  committee  of  four  for 
that  purpose. 

This  committee  was  ordered. 

Bishop  Hamilton  asked  that  he  be  given  leave  of  absence  in 
case  the  illness  of  his  brother,  Rev.  J.  B.  Hamilton,  should  re- 
quire him  to  leave  Louisville;  his  proxy  to  be  left  with  Bishop 
Leete  and  Bishop  Cooke. 

Judge  White  requested  leave  of  absence,  his  proxy  to  be  left 
with  Dr.  F.  M.  Thomas. 

These  requests  were  granted. 

Dr.  A.  F.  Watkins  was  granted  leave  of  absence,  his  proxy 
being  left  with  Dr.  E.  B.  Chappell. 

P.  H.  Linn :  It  seems  to  me  we  ought,  if  possible,  to  have  a 
meeting  of  the  separate  Commissions  for  the  definite  purpose  of 
making  the  nominations  on  these  committees  that  have  been  or- 
dered. If  we  are  appointed  to-night,  individually  we  can  be 
thinking  upon  what  we  should  propose.  I  move  that  immediate- 
ly upon  adjournment  the  Commissions  meet  in  separate  sessions 
for  the  purpose  of  making  such  nominations. 

This  motion  prevailed. 

Dr.  S.  J.  Thompson,  presiding  elder  of  the  Louisville  District, 
made  announcement  of  assignments  for  the  Sunday  services. 

After  a  prolonged  session,  the  Joint  Commission  adjourned 
until  Monday. 

FOURTH  DAY,  MONDAY,  JANUARY  19,  1920. 

Morning  Session. 

The  Joint  Commission  was  called  to  order  at  9:39  a.m.  by  the 
Chairman,  Bishop  Mouzon. 

The  hymn,  "What  a  friend  we  have  in  Jesus,"  was  sung,  and 
Dr.  J.  J.  Wallace  offered  prayer. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  I  read  for  the  Scripture 
lesson  Christ's  great  high-priestly  prayer  in  John  xvii.  May  I 
not  ask  that,  drawing  our  minds  from  other  things,  we  give 
careful  attention  to  the  reading  of  this  great  chapter?  I  shall 
be  told,  of  course  (I  have  heard  it  often),  that  Christ  is  not 
here  praying  for  the  organic  union  of  Churches;  that  he  is 
praying  for  unity,  not  for  union.  I  am  aware  of  all  that.  But 
I  know  that  a  divided  and  discordant  Methodism  contributes 
nothing  to  unity.  And  I  feel  that  this  morning  no  chapter  could 
be  more  appropriate  than  this  one.  We  have  gone  through  our 
great  Centenary.  We  have  raised  millions  of  dollars.  With  the 
world  in  confusion,  what  a  tragedy  if  we  should  use  this  Cente- 
nary money  to  build  altar  against  altar!  to  erect  fort  against 
fort !  to  put  cannon  against  cannon !    May  God  grant  that  this 


Louisville  Meeting 


441 


great  prayer  of  Christ's  in  the  fullest  sense  may  be  answered, 
and  that  we  may  make  our  contribution  toward  the  answering 
of  this  prayer. 

After  the  Scripture  reading,  Dr.  Frank  M.  Thomas  offered 
prayer. 

Secretary  Thomas  read  the  minutes  of  Saturday  afternoon's 
session,  and  with  slight  alterations  they  were  approved. 

The  roll  was  called  and  the  following  were  present:  Bishops 
Earl  Cranston,  F.  D.  Leete,  R.  J.  Cooke,  Collins  Denny,  E.  D. 
Mouzon,  J.  M.  Moore,  James  Cannon,  Jr.  Ministers :  Edgar 
Blake,  D.  G.  Downey,  R.  E.  Jones,  Albert  J.  Nast,  Frank  Neff , 
C.  B.  Spencer,  J.  W.  Van  Cleve,  J.  J.  Wallace,  W.  J.  Young, 
C.  M.  Bishop,  E.  B.  Chappell,  T.  N.  Ivey,  A.  J.  Lamar,  P.  H. 
Linn,  C.  C.  Selecman,  J.  E.  Dickey,  F.  M.  Thomas.  Laymen : 
G.  W.  Brown,  A.  W.  Harris,  C.  W.  Kinne,  I.  G.  Penn,  Rolla 
V.  Watt,  J.  R.  Joy,  C.  A.  Pollock,  E.  L.  Kidney,  H.  N.  Synder, 
P.  D.  Maddin,  J.  R.  Pepper,  R.  S.  Hyer,  J.  H.  Reynolds,  R.  E. 
Blackwell,  T.  D.  Samford,  J.  G.  McGowan. 

Bishop  Cranston  took  the  chair. 

Dr.  Downey  announced  that  Dr.  C.  M.  Stuart  was  called  away 
by  the  illness  of  a  very  dear  friend  and  had  left  his  proxy  with 
Dr.  Joy. 

Bishop  Cooke:  I  wish  to  make  an  inquiry  to  which  I  would 
desire  the  attention  of  the  body.  A  committee  was  appointed 
on  "Articles  of  Religion  and  the  General  Rules."  That  is  the 
case,  is  it  not?  What  I  want  to  know  is,  is  that  all  that  was 
referred  to  this  Committee — simply  the  editing  of  the  Articles 
of  Religion  and  the  coordinating  of  the  General  Rules? 

A  Voice :  The  proposed  name  also. 

Bishop  Cooke :  Is  that  all  that  really  we  should  consider  under 
that  head?  It  is  a  matter  of  fact  that  we  have  in  both  Churches 
the  phrase,  "contrary  to  our  present  and  existing  standards  of 
doctrine. "  Of  course  I  am  not  going  to  take  up  the  time  of  this 
body  in  discussing  this,  that,  or  the  other  concerning  that.  I 
simply  want  to  say  that  since  we  are  going  into  what  is  prac- 
tically an  entirely  new  Church  and  laying  the  foundations  for  a 
future  Methodism,  is  it  not  in  harmony  with  good  judgment 
that  we  should  establish  some  one  thing  along  these  lines?  The 
fact  is,  there  is  not  a  branch  of  Methodism  in  the  world — not  a 
branch  of  Methodism  in  the  world — that  agrees  with  any  other 
branch  as  to  what  really  constitutes  the  standards  of  doctrine. 

A  Voice :  Thank  the  Lord. 

Bishop  Cooke :  I  heard  a  brother  thank  the  Lord  for  the 
League  of  Nations  with  the  Shantung  phrase  in  it!  You  have 
one  number  of  the  sermons  of  Wesley,  we  have  another,  and  the 
English  Church  another,  the  Australian  Church  another,  the 
Japan  Church  another.    And  here  we  are  going  on,  agreeing 


442     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

to  "our  present  existing  and  established  standards  of  doctrine !" 
Now,  what  are  the  doctrines?  I  am  not  bringing  in,  of  course, 
about  those  little  pamphlets;  not  going  into  those  things  at  all. 
But  should  not  that  matter  be  threshed  out?  The  English  Church 
has  really  threshed  it  out  at  last,  after  holding  some  fifty-three 
or  fifty-four  sermons  from  the  beginning  until  now.  She  has 
now  appointed  a  Council  to  investigate  her  standards.  I  think 
that  really  this  matter  ought  to  be  included  in  the  duties  of  this 
committee. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Have  you  a  motion  to 
make? 

Bishop  Cooke :  I  will  make  one  when  the  time  comes.  I  want 
you  to  think  over  it  and  see  whether  it  is  worth  serious  consid- 
eration, and  if  so  to  appoint  a  regular  committee  to  have  it  re- 
ferred to.  In  order  to  test  the  matter,  I  move  that  this  subject 
be  referred  to  the  committee  named. 

This  motion  was  declared  to  prevail. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  I  call  for  a  division  on  that  point.  I  do  not 
believe  that  this  Commission  is  going  to  vote  anything  like  that. 

A  restatement  of  the  motion  was  called  for. 

Bishop  Cooke:  The  motion  is  that  the  subject  of  the  present 
existing  standards  of  doctrine  be  referred  to  the  committee 
named. 

The  vote  was  taken  again;  and  again  it  was  declared  that  the 
motion  prevailed. 

F.  M.  Thomas :  Mr.  Hines  stated  that  he  was  called  to  Frank- 
fort on  official  business,  and  requested  that  his  proxy  be  left 
with  me. 

P.  H.  Linn :  Ought  we  not  at  this  time  to  have  the  announce- 
ment of  the  committees  ordered  on  Saturday? 

Mr.  Samford  announced  that  Bishop  Ainsworth  had  been 
called  home  by  the  serious  illness  of  his  daughter. 

Bishop  Mouzon  announced  the  following  as  appointed  from 
the  Southern  Commission  on  the  committee  to  prepare  a  pre- 
amble :  Bishop  Moore,  A.  J.  Lamar,  H.  N.  Snyder. 

Secretary  Harris  announced  the  following  as  appointed  on 
that  committee  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Commission :  Bish- 
op Cranston,  A.  W.  Harris,  J.  J.  Wallace. 

The  Committee  on  Articles  of  Religion  and  General  Rules, 
the  Name  of  the  Church,  and  Standards  of  Doctrine  was  an- 
nounced as  follows :  From  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  F.  M.  Thomas,  P.  H.  Linn,  R.  E.  Blackwell;  from  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  Bishop  Cooke,  Albert  J.  Nast, 
D.  G.  Downey. 

The  committee  of  ten  on  Organization  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence, etc.,  was  stated  to  be  as  follows :  Bishop  Cannon,  C.  M. 


Louisville  Meeting 


443 


Bishop,  T.  N.  Ivey,  J.  R.  Pepper,  J.  H.  Reynolds,  Bishop  Leete, 
E.  L.  Kidney,  Rolla  V.  Watt,  Edgar  Blake,  J.  W.  Van  Cleve. 

W.  J.  Young  and  P.  D.  Maddin  were  announced  as  the  Com- 
mittee on  Overtures  to  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church  and 
other  Methodist  Churches,  members  from  the  Southern  Church; 
the  members  from  the  Northern  Church  had  not  been  selected. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  A  question  of  privilege.  I  have  a  reason  for  it, 
which  is  sufficient  in  my  mind.  I  wish  to  decline  to  serve  on 
the  Committee  on  Preamble,  and  to  request  that  the  Chairman 
appoint  some  one  in  my  place. 

A.  W.  Harris :  I  have  a  paper  signed  by  L.  R.  Templeton, 
sent  to  this  Commission,  representing  a  meeting  of  students  of 
all  the  Methodist  theological  schools,  both  South  and  North, 
recently  held  at  Des  Moines,  and  urging  unification.  I  have  a 
paper  of  the  same  purport  from  Jesse  McKerns,  representing 
one  of  the  theological  schools. 

P.  H.  Linn:  A  matter  that  was  overlooked  the  other  day.  It 
will  cause  no  discussion.  I  therefore,  to  make  it  a  matter  of 
record,  move  that  on  page  7,  line  4,  after  the  word  "change" 
we  insert  the  words  "the  areas  of,"  so  that  the  line  will  read, 
"to  divide,  consolidate,  and  change  the  areas  of  the  Regional 
Conferences."  It  was  agreed  that  that  was  the  meaning;  but 
if  so,  we  should  have  a  motion  so  that  it  shall  be  inserted  by 
official  action. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Is  that  the  general  under- 
standing? I  do  not  think  that  any  technical  use  of  "areas"  could 
possibly  confuse  the  meaning.  Or  do  you  prefer  "boundaries"? 
You  can  say  "change  the  boundaries." 

P.  H.  Linn :  May  I  have  the  privilege  of  retaining  my  state- 
ment of  the  motion,  and  let  some  one  move  an  amendment?  I 
consider  it  much  better  and  clearer  language  to  have  "areas" 
there.    So  I  adhere  to  my  original  form  of  the  motion. 

Edgar  Blake:  While  it  is  true  that  Dr.  Linn's  present  state- 
ment makes  it  clearer,  it  will  also  make  for  confusion.  For 
instance,  we  have  in  our  Church  our  system  of  episcopal  areas. 
You  have  your  system  of  episcopal  districts.  In  that  Northwest 
group  as  it  now  stands  we  have  five  episcopal  areas.  If  you 
change  the  form  of  it  so  as  to  read  "to  divide,  consolidate,  and 
change  the  areas  of  the  Regional  Conferences,"  you  will  seem  to 
give  to  the  General  Conference  the  power  to  change  the  epis- 
copal areas  within  the  region  of  jurisdiction.  That  will  make 
the  confusion.  I  do  not  believe  that  we  need  all  these  words, 
"divide,  consolidate,  and  change."  I  think  if  you  would  strike 
out  the  words  "divide,  consolidate,  and,"  so  that  it  will  read, 
"to  change  the  boundaries  of  the  Regional  Conferences,"  that 
will  make  all  clear.    I  move  as  *a  substitute  for  Dr.  Linn's  mo- 


444     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

tion  that  we  amend  line  4,  page  7,  so  that  it  will  read,  "to 
change  the  boundaries  of  the  Regional  Conferences." 

This  substitute  was  accepted,  and  then  adopted. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Naturally  you  now  have 
the  report  of  the  committee  to  which  was  referred  the  rewording 
of  the  subject  on  hand  Saturday  evening. 

H.  N.  Snyder:  I  move  that  from  this  time  on  all  speeches  be 
limited  to  five  minutes. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  If  I  remain  in  my  present  frame  of  mind,  I 
shall  not  speak  for  five  or  three  minutes.  I  think  one  would 
cover  all  I  want  to  say.  But  I  am  opposed  to  the  motion.  You 
are  dealing  with  matters  of  the  very  gravest  concern;  matters 
on  which  it  is  very  desirable  that  conviction  and  harmony  should 
be  the  result  of  the  discussion.  And  we  all  know,  no  matter 
how  capable  we  may  be  in  compacting  our  thought,  our  remarks 
— we  all  know  that  it  is  impossible  for  any  man  to  make  a  wor- 
thy speech  on  a  great  question  in  five  minutes.  I  hope  the  mo- 
tion will  not  prevail. 

H.  N.  Snyder:  It  occurs  to  me  that  most  worthy  speeches 
have  been  made  in  five  minutes.  We  have  had  this  experience 
when  we  have  been  working  under  the  rule,  that  when  the  speech 
seemed  worthy  to  go  on  we  have  usually  made  a  motion  to  ex- 
tend the  time.  I  do  not  think  it  would  really  be  in  the  way  of 
any  one's  saying  what  is  on  his  mind. 

F.  M.  Thomas :  Let  me  say  just  this,  that  there  is  a  phase 
of  this  problem — in  a  sleepless  night  I  heard  two  men  talking, 
and  that  brought  it  to  my  attention — a  phase  of  this  problem 
which  came  upon  me  like  a  thunderbolt.  I  was  dull  in  grasping 
it  before.  I  want  some  light  before  I  vote.  I  want  to  say  this 
to  Dr.  Snyder:  If  I  should  perhaps  be  confronted  with  the 
question  of  unification  at  his  Conference  and  the  meeting  asked 
me  why  I  had  not  raised  that  question  before,  I  might  reply 
that,  on  account  of  his  motion,  I  was  not  able  to  make  myself 
plain. 

H.  N.  Snyder :  I  ask  permission  to  withdraw  that  motion. 

E.  B.  Chappell :  Is  it  understood  that  in  line  25,  page  7,  the 
words  "for  residential  supervision"  are  to  be  inserted  after  the 
word  "jurisdiction"? 

It  was  answered  that  those  words  are  already  in  there. 

Edgar  Blake  moved  that  the  report  of  the  committee  be  heard. 

Bishop  Cannon :  We  are  not  quite  ready  to  report.  For  one 
thing,  we  are  waiting  for  the  answer  to  a  telegram  which  we 
have  sent.  We  will  have  to  ask  for  another  meeting  before  we 
can  report. 

Edgar  Blake  moved  to  proceed  to  the  regular  order. 
The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Has  any  regular  order 
been  fixed? 


Louisville  Meeting 


445 


Edgar  Blake:  I  think  the  motion  was  made  that  we  take  up 
these  recommendations  of  the  two  Commissions  in  regular  order. 
I  think  we  have  taken  them  all  up  except  that  referring  to  the 
number  and  geographical  distribution  of  the  Regional  Confer- 
ences. I  would  like  to  have  that  statement  confirmed  by  the 
record. 

The  Secretary  read  from  the  record. 

D.  G.  Downey :  I  move  that  we  take  up  the  matter  of  the  num- 
ber and  geographical  distribution  of  the  Regional  Conferences. 
This  was  ordered. 

Edgar  Blake:  As  I  think  all  you  brethren  know,  I  was  a 
member  of  the  subcommittee  that  dealt  with  this  matter  of  Re- 
gional Conferences,  their  number  and  geographical  distribution, 
their  powers,  and  other  matters  relating  to  these  bodies.  I  may 
say  this  word  for  our  committee,  that  I  think  no  group  of  men 
in  this  entire  Joint  Commission  did  more  faithful  work  than  did 
this  commission  or  committee  on  Conferences.  And  there  was 
no  part  of  our  work  that  commanded  so  much  of  our  time  and 
our  investigation  and  debate  as  did  that  dealing  with  this  item 
here.  And  while  I  do  not  speak  for  the  committee,  but  speak 
solely  for  myself,  I  believe  that  the  plan  here  presented,  all 
things  considered,  is  one  of  the  best,  if  not  the  best,  for  arrange- 
ment that  we  can  make  at  this  time.  This  is  not  saying  that  this 
plan  suits  every  member  of  our  committee,  or  suits  any  member 
of  our  committee  in  every  particular.  I  think  there  are  one  or 
two  points  where  it  can  be  strengthened  and  ought  to  be  strength- 
ened. There  are  one  or  two  changes  that  I  am  sure  would  make 
it  very  much  more  acceptable  to  many  of  our  own  people.  I 
want  to  call  your  attention  to  subsections  2  and  3 :  In  Region  2, 
"Delaware,  Maryland,  District  of  Columbia,  Virginia,  West  Vir- 
ginia, Kentucky,  and  North  Carolina";  in  Region  3,  "Tennessee, 
South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Florida,  Alabama,  and  Mississippi." 
I  am  sure  that  it  would  greatly  ease  our  situation  with  reference 
to  certain  of  our  interests  in  the  South  if  we  could  have  an  ex- 
change of  Tennessee  and  North  Carolina;  if  we  could  put  Ten- 
nessee in  Regional  Group  2  and  North  Carolina  in  Regional 
Group  3.  The  largest  white  Conference  we  have  in  the  South 
is  our  Holston  Conference  in  Tennessee.  The  bulk  of  the  Con- 
ference is  in  Tennessee,  although  we  have  8;ooo  members  of 
that  Conference  in  the  States  of  Virginia  and  West  Virginia. 
That  Conference  will  be  cut  in  two  if  Tennessee  is  associated 
with  Division  3.  If  it  could  be  associated  with  Division  2,  it 
would  enable  the  Holston  Conference  practically  to  remain  in- 
tact as  it  now  is,  so  far  as  our  own  work  is  concerned.  It 
would  greatly  ease  the  situation  for  us  if  that  exchange  could 
be  made.  I  might  make  this  further  statement,  that,  so  far  as 
any  shift  in  numerical  balance  between  Regional  Group  2  and 


44^     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


Regional  Group  3  is  concerned,  this  exchange  of  these  two 
States  would  have  practically  no  effect  whatsoever,  as  the  total 
membership  in  North  Carolina  is  almost  identical  with  that  in 
Tennessee.  I  might  also  call  your  attention  to  this  fact  that 
would  be  of  interest  to  you,  although  I  do  not  bring  it  forth  as  a 
reason  for  this  transfer,  because  I  am  speaking  entirely  from  the 
standpoint  of  our  own  work.  But  if  you  will  turn  to  that  sheet, 
which  I  think  is  in  the  possession  of  you  all,  which  gives  the 
distribution  of  Annual  Conferences  whose  membership  falls  into 
two  or  more  of  these  Regional  Groups,  you  will  find  this  inter- 
esting fact :  The  Holston  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  South,  has  a  membership  of  47,000  plus  in  the  States 
of  Virginia  and  West  Virginia,  and  has  a  membership  of  34,000 
in  the  State  of  Tennessee.  If  Tennessee  continues  to  be  asso- 
ciated with  Regional  Group  3,  the  Holston  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  will  be  cut  practically  in 
two.  May  I  also  call  your  attention  to  the  Memphis  Conference 
of  that  Church?  That  Conference  has  a  membership  of  18,000 
plus  in  Kentucky,  and  of  58,000  in  Tennessee.  If  Tennessee 
is  associated  with  Regional  Group  3,  it  will  mean  practically  the 
splitting  in  two  of  that  Conference.  If  Tennessee  should  be  as- 
sociated with  Regional  Group  2,  with  Kentucky,  Virginia,  West 
Virginia,  Maryland,  and  Delaware,  as  that  Regional  Group  now 
stands,  the  Holston  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  the  Holston  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  and  the  Memphis  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  would  then  remain  practically  intact. 
I  do  not  make  a  motion.  I  do  not  feel  quite  free  to  do  it.  I 
did  not  know  quite  how  the  suggestion  would  strike  our  South- 
ern brethren. 

C.  A.  Pollock:  I  move  that  the  State  of  Tennessee  be  taken 
out  of  Group  3  and  put  in  Group  2,  being  exchanged  with  the 
State  of  North  Carolina,  which  shall  be  taken  out  of  Group  2 
and  put  in  Group  3. 

E.  B.  Chappell :  Attention  should  be  called  to  the  fact  that 
at  a  former  meeting  when  this  matter  was  brought  up,  for  rea- 
sons that  seemed  worth  while  to  the  delegation  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  we  insisted  on  having  Tennessee  kept 
in  this  third  group.  Our  desire  grows  largely  out  of  the  very 
close  relation  of  the  various  members  of  this  group  of  Confer- 
ences, and  especially  their  very  close  connection  with  Emory 
University,  which  would  be  the  great  central  school  of  that 
group.  In  the  State  of  North  Carolina  there  is  a  great  college, 
the  strongest  college  that  we  have  in  the  Church.  That  would 
throw  Emory  University  and  Trinity  College  into  the  same  Re- 
gional Conference.  It  would  put  the  Emory  University  out  of 
relation  to  the  Conferences  in  Tennessee,  with  which  it  now 


Louisville  Meeting 


447 


bears  a  very  intimate  relation.  And  because  we  want  to  retain 
that  relationship  and  maintain  that  educational  balance  in  the 
South,  we  favor  the  present  arrangement.  Trinity  College  would 
be  the  central  institution  of  Group  No.  2  and  Emory  University 
would  be  the  central  institution  of  Group  No.  3.  We  very  much 
desire  to  maintain  that  relation. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  would  offer  as  a  substitute  the  exchange  of 
the  States  of  Kentucky  and  South  Carolina.  That  is  to  say,  put 
Kentucky  in  Group  3  and  South  Carolina  in  Group  2.  I  pro- 
pose this  for  the  following  reasons :  The  proposal  made  by  Dr. 
Blake  joins  together  Maryland  and  Tennessee,  Memphis  and 
Baltimore,  the  longest  sort  of  jump  possible,  it  seems  to  me,  in 
the  Southern  area.  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  and  South  Caro- 
lina naturally  go  together.  Commercially  they  are  together.  The 
South  Carolina  people — I  am  not  here  to  speak  for  them ;  but,  as 
I  have  learned  some  facts,  the  South  Carolina  people  do  not  turn 
southward  to  Georgia.  They  go  north.  Their  associations  are  all 
up  the  other  way.  The  people  of  Virginia,  Maryland,  Delaware, 
and  North  Carolina  have  practically  little  association  with  Ken- 
tucky and  very  little  with  Tennessee.  We  love  them ;  but  only  as 
we  are  compelled  to  go  to  Nashville,  we  have  very  little  Church 
relationship.  The  only  reason,  it  seems  to  me,  that  Dr.  Blake  of- 
fers is  that  8,000  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
live  in  Virginia.  This  is  a  very  small  number  of  members  to  up- 
set the  whole  scheme.  If  I  understand  the  plan,  when  the 
Churches  are  united,  the  two  Holston  Conferences  will  be  one 
Conference.  We  will  certainly  not  have  two  Conferences  cover- 
ing the  same  area.  There  will  be  33,000  Holston  Conference  peo- 
ple in  Tennessee  and  about  the  same  number  of  Holston  Confer- 
ence people  of  our  Church  in  Tennessee,  enough  to  make  a  very 
good  Conference.  Whereas,  if  the  purpose  is  to  keep  the  Holston 
Conference  as  it  is  together,  all  of  it  together,  you  will  have  a  very 
large  Conference,  and  the  continuation  of  that  very  unsuitable 
geographical  arrangement  running  all  the  way  from  West  Vir- 
ginia to  Georgia.  I  do  not  think  it  is  possible  in  an  arrange- 
ment of  this  kind  to  consult  the  whims  or  wishes  of  a  few  thou- 
sand members.  The  Memphis  situation  is  amply  met  if  you  put 
Kentucky  in  the  third  Regional  Conference.  Kentucky  and 
Tennessee  are  bound  together  by  trunk  lines  of  railroad,  and  the 
Louisville  and  Nashville  system  has  connections  all  through  the 
South,  starting  at  Cincinnati  and  covering  the  States  down  to 
New  Orleans.  I  do  not  think  that  geographical  distribution  that 
joins  Tennessee  with  Delaware  and  Maryland  is  at  all  desirable. 
Nor  do  I  think  it  is  desirable  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  people 
would  come  together  ecclesiastically  when  they  do  not  come  to- 
gether in  any  other  way,  or  very  rarely  in  any  other  way. 
Whereas,  if  you  put  South  Carolina  in  Group  2  you  maintain 


448     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

the  balance  as  to  number,  and  you  join  together  territories  that 
are  homogeneous  and  geographically  belong  together.  I  do  hope 
nothing  will  be  adopted  that  has  in  view  to  maintain  that  extraor- 
dinary and  very  undesirable  arrangement  of  the  Holston  Con- 
ference which  should  long  ago  have  been  changed  in  some  way. 
Preachers  went  away  up  to  Princeton,  W.  Va.,  from  Chatta- 
nooga, spending  a  great  sum  of  money  unnecessarily,  and  are 
going  to  jump  back  to  Chattanooga  at  the  next  Conference. 

J.  R.  Pepper :  I  second  Bishop  Cannon's  motion.  The  arrange- 
ment he  suggests  is  far  more  natural.  The  Memphis  Conference 
is  most  intimately  associated  with  Mississippi  and  Alabama.  We 
have  more  Mississippi  business  men  in  Memphis  than  from  Ten- 
nessee, and  South  Carolina  and  North  Carolina  properly  belong 
together.  I  am  certain  the  arrangement  would  be  far  better  in 
every  way,  to  have  Kentucky  changed  to  No.  3. 

Bishop  Cooke  :  I  think  what  Dr.  Pepper  has  just  stated  is  cor- 
rect, so  far  as  his  part  of  Tennessee  is  concerned.  There  are 
social,  commercial,  and  other  relationships  between  West  Ten- 
nessee and  Alabama  and  Florida  and  Mississippi,  more  than  be- 
tween West  Tennessee  and  any  other  part  of  the  country.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  unnatural,  from  whatever  point  you  look  at 
it,  to  relate  East  Tennessee  with  the  same  States  that  I  have 
mentioned  and  Brother  Pepper  has  referred  to.  All  the  com- 
mercial relationships,  all  the  commercial  affairs  of  East  Ten- 
nessee go  eastward,  up  into  Virginia  and  Delaware  and  Mary- 
land, and  so  on,  on  to  the  East.  The  social  relations  are  that 
way.  Our  membership  is  there.  East  Tennessee  is  related  to 
Virginia  in  the  closest  way — to  this  portion  of  Virginia  that 
hinges  on  East  Tennessee.  Families  in  East  Tennessee  are  re- 
lated to  families  in  Virginia.  Preachers  are  related.  Their 
Conferences  are  joined.  And  to  cut  East  Tennessee  off  from 
Virginia — I  am  speaking  now  even  of  both  Conferences,  the 
Southern  Conference  and  our  own  Conference — would  give  in- 
tense dissatisfaction.  And  I  want  to  say  now  that  I  have  serious 
doubts  whether  the  people,  either  in  the  Holston  Conference  of 
the  Church,  South,  or  in  my  own  Conference,  will  be  satisfied, 
or  can  be  brought  to  agree  to  this  arrangement.  I  have  talked 
to  my  neighbors  down  there.  I  have  talked  to  prominent  South- 
ern Methodists.  And  they  are  dissatisfied  with  this.  I  called  up 
a  prominent  man  for  an  interview  the  other  day,  but  he  could 
not  come.  But  I  talked  to  some  of  the  chairmen  of  districts, 
and  they  were  emphatically  against  this.  I  am  not  drawing  any 
line  between  the  Holston  Conference  of  the  Church,  South,  and 
my  own  Holston  Conference,  because  truly  I  do  not  know  any, 
and  I  am  as  familiar  with  one  as  with  the  other.  It  would  make 
no  difference  to  me  personally;  but  I  know  the  feeling  of  the 
people.    And  I  say  now  that  you  will  never  get  the  consent  of 


Louisville  Meeting 


449 


East  Tennesseeans  to  go  down  into  Florida  and  Alabama  and 
West  Tennessee,  when  they  have  been  all  their  lives  commercial- 
ly and  socially  related  to  the  people  in  Virginia  and  West  Vir- 
ginia. Tennessee  naturally  belongs  to  Virginia.  We  have  rail- 
roads and  Churches  through  there ;  and  to  think  of  jumping 
from  Kentucky  clean  over  Tennessee  to  get  to  North  Carolina! 
It  is  perfectly  natural  that  North  Carolina  should  be  related  to 
South  Carolina,  because  the  Seaboard  Line  connects  them.  They 
belong  together  geographically.  But  to  jump  from  Kentucky 
over  Tennessee  to  get  to  North  Carolina!  It  is  a  very  small 
angle  there,  whereas  the  Holston  Conferences  of  both  Churches 
run  into  Virginia  and  there  is  a  large  membership  there.  And 
those  people  will  not  consent  to  be  dissevered  from  the  relations 
that  existed  before  the  division  of  the  Church  and  since  then 
until  now.  To  cut  them  off  completely  from  every  relation  they 
have  had  and  put  them  into  relationships  which  they  have  never 
had  and  never  dreamed  of,  is  a  most  unstatesmanlike  affair.  It 
it  all  right  to  talk  about  "numerically."  I  do  not  care  about  that. 
It  is  the  people  I  am  thinking  about,  and  the  unity  of  spirit  among 
our  people,  the  unity  in  thought  and  feeling  and  purpose,  and 
the  perfect  satisfaction  that  will  result.  We  do  not  want  to  lose 
any  people  in  East  Tennessee.  I  do  not  want  to  see  our  people 
going  into  the  Presbyterian  and  Baptist  Churches.  We  want  to 
hold  them.  They  are  our  people,  in  whichever  Church  they  are. 
We  do  not  want  any  division  among  our  people,  or  occasion  for 
preachers  who  will  be  discontented  to  be  propagandists  of  dis- 
union and  disruption  of  Methodism.  God  knows  we  have  had 
enough  of  that.  I  beg  you  to  consider  the  effect  of  the  thing 
in  the  Regional  Conferences,  in  the  General  Conferences,  and  in 
the  mass  of  the  people,  in  the  local  units,  among  the  people 
who  have  commercial  and  social  and  other  relationships  with 
Virginia. 

Bishop  Cannon:  Are  not  East  Tennesseeans  more  closely  re- 
lated to  Middle  and  West  Tennessee  by  State  pride  and  politics 
than  to  any  other  part  of  the  world? 

Bishop  Cooke:  If  East  Tennessee  had  its  chance,  it  would  be 
a  separate  State ! 

Bishop  Cannon :  Cut  it  off,  then. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  fear  I  did  not  make  myself  quite  clear  to  the 
brethren,  especially  in  view  of  the  remarks  made  by  Bishop 
Cannon.  I  was  not  basing  my  statement  entirely  upon  the  fact 
that  in  the  Holston  Conference  we  had  8,000  people  in  Virginia. 
I  simply  meant  that  as  one  of  the  factors  in  the  case.  We  have 
42,000  white  members  in  the  State  of  Tennessee.  As  they  are 
now  grouped  they  will  be  completely  immersed  in  that  Regional 
Conference  3,  because  the  total  membership  in  Regional  Con- 
ference 3,  including  our  membership  in  Tennessee,  will  be 
29 


450     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

only  62,000.  Now,  in  Regional  Group  2,  we  have  in  that  group, 
as  it  now  stands,  224,000  of  our  members  and  584,000  of  your 
Church.  Our  members  in  Tennessee  would  feel  much  more 
comfortable  if  they  were  permitted  to  remain  in  a  regional  group- 
ing where  there  was  a  larger  representation  of  the  people  whom 
they  have  been  associated  with  during  the  years.  We  have  said 
considerable  here  about  the  protection  of  the  rights  of  minori- 
ties. So  far  as  our  Commission  is  concerned,  I  think  our  con- 
cern has  been  fully  to  protect  the  rights  of  minorities  at  every 
point,  so  far  as  that  could  be  done.  We  have  not  said  very 
much  about  that  concerning  the  rights  of  our  own  minorities  in 
this  regional  grouping.  I  am  not  pleading  for  the  protection 
of  the  rights  of  minorities  even  now.  But  I  am  suggesting  that 
ecclesiastically  and  psychologically  it  would  be  a  most  helpful 
thing  if  we  could  reach  an  agreement  here  at  this  time  that 
Tennessee  might  be  associated  with  Regional  Group  2.  Of 
course,  as  I  think  Bishop  Leete  said  some  time  ago,  there  are 
bound  to  be  some  unhappy  minorities,  whatever  we  do.  We 
do  not  want  these  unhappy  minorities  entirely  on  one  side.  I 
confess  that  the  statement  made  by  Dr.  Chappell  concerning  the 
college  situation  in  the  South  does  not  appeal  strongly  to  me, 
because  I  think  there  are  other  colleges  in  the  Church,  South, 
besides  these  two.  Are  there  not?  If  we  were  basing  this  group- 
ing on  college  lines,  we  would  have  to  split  up  regions  com- 
pletely; for  in  Regional  Group  1,  as  proposed,  we  have  Boston 
University,  Wesleyan  University,  Syracuse  University,  Alle- 
ghany College,  Carlisle,  and  Dickinson;  and  several  more,  I 
think.  You  cannot  make  this  regional  grouping  quite  on  that 
basis.  I  ask  you  to  think  this  over.  I  do  not  suggest  that  we 
arrive  at  a  decision  now.  If  agreeable,  I  move  that  we  refer 
this  matter  to  a  special  committee  of  six,  three  from  each  Church, 
to  consider  and  report  at  the  afternoon  session. 
This  motion  was  seconded. 

J.  J.  Wallace:  Before  that  motion  is  put,  I  want  to  say  some- 
thing on  this  subject.  I  think  you  will  bear  with  me,  though  I 
have  spoken  often  and  long  during  the  past  three  years !  I  have 
thought  about  this  matter  of  the  lines  of  the  Regional  Confer- 
ences. I  want  to  say  one  or  two  things.  I  believe,  as  we  all 
do,  in  unification — at  least,  in  union.  And  I  believe  in  a  plan 
of  unification.  It  is  inevitable,  when  two  bodies  of  equal  size 
are  to  be  brought  together,  that  there  shall  be  two  dreads  aris- 
ing: the  dread  of  absorption  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other 
hand  the  dread  of  division.  It  is  absolutely  necessary  that  any 
plan  or  unification  machinery  shall  take  both  into  account.  Now, 
as  I  understand  it,  one  of  the  basic  principles  of  the  Chattanooga 
suggestion,  which  was  mentioned  in  the  preamble  to  the  action 
of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Church,  South,  and  which  was 


Louisville  Meeting 


45i 


recognized  by  our  General  Conference,  was  the  protection  of 
minorities.  I  quite  agree  with  that.  I  think  that  we  have  rather 
fully  protected  the  minority  known  as  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  with  2,100,000  members.  But  I  want  to  call 
your  attention  to  this  table  here,  to  the  facts  just  as  they  exist. 
Take  No.  2,  as  Dr.  Blake  called  your  attention  to  it  a  mo- 
ment ago.  In  that  region  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has 
something  over  224,000;  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  has  some  584,000.  In  Region  6,  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  has  something  over  143,000  members.  In  Region  3,  it 
has  something  over  163,000  members.  There  are  minorities 
there,  as  compared  with  the  Church,  South.  All  together  in 
those  three  Regional  Conferences  there  are  some  2,500,000  mem- 
bers, which  is  400,000  members  more  than  the  total  membership 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  at  this  time.  That 
is  to  say,  the  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
these  two  regions  are  placed  in  Regional  Conferences  where,  I 
will  not  say  the  Church,  South,  is  predominant,  but  I  will  say  it 
is  largely  preponderant.  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  another 
fact  in  connection  with  that — namely,  that  the  incidence  of  uni- 
fication will  fall  in  those  regions  where  the  Churches  are  both 
really  strong;  that  is  to  say,  unification  will  be  first  felt  there. 
People  away  down  South  will  know  that  there  has  been  unifica- 
tion and  will  be  interested ;  and  so  with  the  people  away  up 
North.  But  the  people  in  those  regions  where  both  Churches 
are  relatively  strong  will  be  the  ones  to  really  feel  it.  And  we 
have  got  to  secure  unification  there,  if  we  ever  secure  it.  I 
think  that  these  regional  lines  may  help  us  to  secure  it.  I  think 
they  may  greatly  hinder  us  from  securing  it.  They  will  hinder, 
if  there  is  any  very  considerable  minority  which  cannot  be  pro- 
tected and  has  not  been  protected.  On  the  other  hand,  they 
may  help  .us  in  this  way.  Suppose  that  in  these  regions,  where 
the  Churches  are  both  relatively  strong,  we  can  construct  Re- 
gional Conferences  in  such  way  that  there  will  not  be  the  pre- 
dominance of  either  Church,  and  the  lines  are  drawn  around 
such  regions.  Don't  you  see  that  those  people  will  have  a 
chance,  a  large  and  fair  chance,  to  secure  unification  without 
interference  from  other  parts  of  the  Church?  What  do  I  mean? 
I  mean  that  if  we  have  a  Regional  Conference  with  about  equal 
numbers  of  members  in  that  region  where  the  Churches  are 
both  relatively  strong,  New  England  would  not  interfere.  Dr. 
Blake  could  not  prevent  those  people  from  getting  thoroughly 
together  there ;  and  Dr.  Hyer,  from  Texas,  could  not  prevent  uni- 
fication from  taking  place  there.  You  see  what  I  am  driving 
at.  The  unification  must  take  place  where  those  conditions  ex- 
ist, or  it  will  never  take  place.  It  will  take  place  more  rapidly 
if  we  make  these  Regional  Conference  boundaries  in  such  way 


452    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

that  it  can.  Now,  is  it  possible  to  do  that?  I  think  it  is,  in  one 
of  two  ways.  We  can  increase  the  number  of  Regional  Confer- 
ences, or  we  can  lessen  the  number  of  Regional  Conferences 
by  one,  and  accomplish  the  same  thing.  Of  course  I  would  not 
propose  here  for  one  moment  that  the  strong  Northern  region 
should  go  down  and  overlap  those  regions  where  the  Churches 
are  both  relatively  strong.  That  would  not  remedy  the  matter; 
it  would  only  make  it  worse.  What  I  am  proposing  is  that  these 
two  regions  that  I  have  mentioned  shall  go  North  and  take  in 
enough  Northern  territory  so  that  there  will  be  a  fair  balance  in 
both  of  them,  and  an  opportunity  to  secure  unification  in  those 
very  regions  where  unification  must  first  of  all  take  place,  where 
it  must  be  feasible,  if  it  is  ever  to  take  place.  If  you  are  at  all 
interested,  I  shall  be  glad  to  present  a  proposition  and  have  it 
referred  to  this  committee,  by  which  that  can  be  brought  about. 
R.  E.  Blackwell :  What  is  your  plan? 

J.  J.  Wallace :  Extend  Region  2  so  as  to  include  Ohio,  and 
you  will  secure  601,000  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  and  606,000  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 
I  would  extend  No.  6  west  and  north ;  and  that  would  eliminate 
No.  4  and  give  you  five  Regional  Conferences,  two  of  which 
would  be  predominantly  Northern,  one  predominantly  Southern, 
and  one  almost  perfectly  balanced,  while  in  the  other  the  South- 
ern Church  would  have  three-fifths  of  the  members.  The  orig- 
inal proposition  was  for  three  Regional  Conferences.  The  mem- 
bership of  the  two  Churches  in  the  United  States  is  about  three 
to  two ;  I  have  the  figures.  Suppose  we  had  adopted  the  Chatta- 
nooga suggestion  of  three  Regional  Conferences;  you  could  not 
imagine  any  division  that  would  have  given  the  membership  of 
the  Church,  South,  more  than  one  of  them.  They  would  have 
had  one  out  of  three.  I  am  proposing  that  they  shall  be  pre- 
ponderant in  two  of  them,  we  in  two  of  them,  while  the  other 
one  will  be  almost  balanced.  If  nobody  raises  the  question  about 
voting  by  regions,  there  is  a  very  simple  way  by  which  that  ar- 
rangement can  be  adopted  almost  exactly  as  it  is  now  in  the  Cleve- 
land proposition. 

Bishop  Cannon:  How  would  you  meet  that  point? 

J.  J.  Wallace:  By  changing  the  word  "two-thirds"  to  "three- 
fourths/' 

C.  B.  Spencer:  I  have  not  had  in  my  mind  the  test  of  the 
proposition  for  the  protection  of  minorities.  My  thought  has 
been  directed  entirely  toward  producing  a  reorganization  that 
will  really  unify  our  people  in  both  branches  of  the  Church.  In 
my  own  thought  I  have  not  had  in  mind  what  you  call  the  pro- 
tection of  minorities  in  the  letter  of  the  law,  because  the  men 
I  have  met  in  the  Church,  South,  have  been  fair-minded  men. 
We  understand  that.    But  there  is  difference  between  the  people 


Louisville  Meeting 


453 


in  this  room,  and  difference  among  the  people  in  our  Churches. 
Nobody  ever  emphasized  that  more  strongly  than  Bishop  A.  W. 
Wilson.  He  said  that  if  a  certain  thing  should  carry,  it  would 
cost  the  Church,  South,  500,000  members.  I  could  not  quite 
believe  that  until  I  looked  the  matter  up.  What  I  would  like 
to  see,  what  I  think  we  all  would  like  to  see,  is  unification  that 
would  prevent  any  exodus,  but  would  produce  a  larger  Method- 
ism, a  larger  leadership  and  power  at  every  point  throughout  the 
country.  In  a  map  that  I  made  I  drew  three  border  Conferences 
where  the  Churches  are  in  a  pronounced  manner  side  by  side. 
Take  Missouri  and  Oklahoma,  which  is  a  part  of  my  territory, 
and  with  which  I  am  intimately  acquainted.  There  I  found  this, 
in  the  diagram  that  I  prepared  for  that  meeting  at  Evanston, 
that  while  there  are  about  85,000  of  our  people  in  the  State  of 
Missouri,  and  in  the  Church,  South,  considerably  more,  only 
fifteen  per  cent  of  Methodist  Churches  in  the  State  of  Missouri 
were  in  towns  where  both  Churches  were  represented.  Fifty- 
four  per  cent  of  the  Methodist  Churches  in  Missouri  are  in 
towns  where  we  have  no  Church.  Fifty-four  per  cent  of  the 
Methodist  Churches  in  Missouri  are  in  the  Church,  South, 
and  in  localities  by  themselves.  Thirty-one  per  cent  of  the  Meth- 
odist Churches  in  Missouri  are  of  our  kind,  and  occupy  terri- 
tory all  alone.  Only  fifteen  per  cent,  I  think  it  is,  are  in  towns 
where  both  denominations  are  represented.  In  this  reorganiza- 
tion there  ought  to  be  some  provision  whereby  neither  of  the 
two  should  be  entirely  under  the  hands  of  the  other.  Bishop 
A.  W.  Wilson  said  that  if  a  certain  thing  went  through,  many 
of  his  people  would  think  they  were  delivered  hand  and  foot 
into  the  hands  of  their  enemies.  There  is  something  of  that 
psychological  condition  in  the  territory  I  now  speak  of.  In 
Oklahoma  the  matter  is  still  more  simple.  There  the  Method- 
its  Episcopal  Church,  South,  has  fifty-five  per  cent  of  all  the 
Methodist  Churches  in  Oklahoma  in  towns  by  themselves.  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  thirty-three  per  cent  of  all  the 
Churches  down  there  in  towns  where  no  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  is.  Only  twelve  per  cent  of  the  Methodist 
Churches  in  Oklahoma  are  where,  as  we  have  been  used  to  say' 
in  the  past,  altar  has  been  built  against  altar.  In  the  twenty 
years  that  I  have  been  in  my  present  position,  I  have  never  al- 
lowed a  criticism  of  success  of  the  Church,  South,  to  enter  the 
columns  of  the  Central  Christian  Advocate.  When  I  have  heard 
of  the  intensive  work  of  the  leaders  of  the  Church,  South,  in 
Missouri  or  Oklahoma,  I  have  been  glad,  and  never  in  my  heart 
had  a  criticism  of  it.  It  has  seemed  to  me,  brothers,  that  if  there 
could  be  some  kind  of  alignment,  if  the  States  of  Missouri  and 
Kansas  and  Oklahoma  and  Arkansas  could  be  placed  in  a  group 
where  they  could  work  side  by  side,  if  they  could  be  related  to 


454     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

the  same  schools,  if  the  bishop  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  and  the  one  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  could  be  on  the  same  college  board  of  trustees,  and  so, 
if  in  everything  those  men  could  work  side  by  side,  vying  with 
each  other  for  the  common  good,  sitting  around  the  same  table 
and  leading  all  factions  of  the  Church  as  they  have  existed  in 
the  past,  that  would  make  for  a  greater  Methodism.  And  I 
have  thought  that  the  delegations  of  the  Church,  South,  would 
be  pleased  to  have  it  so.  In  that  little  map  that  I  made,  that  I 
borrowed  from  Brother  Wallace  just  now,  I  made  three  of  these 
border  Regional  Conferences.  In  two  of  them,  the  membership 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  far  exceeds  that  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  It  is  a  matter  of  absolute  in- 
difference to  me — what  I  care  for  is  not  that  either  Church  shall 
preponderate  in  the  matter  of  membership,  but  that  whichever 
is  preponderating,  the  two  Churches  in  these  border  regions  shall 
act  together  and  work  side  by  side  for  the  common  good,  for  a 
greater  Methodism,  for  a  larger  unification.  When  I  printed 
the  findings  of  the  Savannah  meeting  in  the  Central  Christian 
Advocate,  there  were  plenty  of  Churches  in  the  area  of  that 
Advocate  that  felt  as  if  they  had  been  struck  by  paralysis.  The 
building  of  churches  was  halted.  Bishops  had  requests  from  our 
pastors  in  those  areas  that  have  gone  bag  and  baggage  over  in 
one  of  these  regions  in  the  Church,  South — requests  for  trans- 
fers to  get  out  of  those  areas.  I  do  not  believe  that  anybody 
wants  that.  I  would  not  want  it  to  occur  with  members  of  the 
Church,  South.  I  would  move  as  much  influence  as  possible 
against  any  influence  of  that  kind  in  the  Church,  South,  as  cer- 
tainly as  in  behalf  of  our  own  Conference.  I  commend  this  to 
the  attention  of  this  Joint  Commission.  Let  us  build  such  a  dis- 
tribution of  areas  as  will  cause  all  the  elements  of  the  Church 
to  flow  together,  to  be  brought  together,  jointly  consolidated, 
and  thus  go  on  into  that  future  that  we  have  an  aspiration  for, 
for  reunited  Methodism.  I  do  not  believe  it  would  be  pleasing 
to  members  of  the  Church,  South,  that  are  represented  here  to 
have  such  an  exodus  on  the  part  of  our  people,  or  such  a  sense 
of  betrayal  on  the  part  of  our  laity,  even  as  I  know  it  would  not 
be  pleasing  to  our  own  people  that  your  people  should  have  any 
sense  of  being  absorbed  by  our  own  Church.  You  will  recall 
the  words  of  Bishop  Hoss,  who  said  that  he  did  not  propose  to 
be  absorbed.  Let  us  apply  that  all  around.  Let  us  try  to  get 
such  an  areal  distribution  as  will  bring  these  large  bodies  to- 
gether into  one  in  very  fact.  It  is  no  small  thing  that  there 
should  be  85,000  of  our  people  in  Missouri,  or  that  there  should 
be  districts  in  the  State  of  Oklahoma  presided  over  by  our  Dis- 
trict Superintendents  in  which  there  is  not  a  single  society  of 
the  Church,  South.    There  is  at  least  one  large  district  in  which 


Louisville  Meeting 


455 


there  is  not  one  Church,  South,  society.  And  these  matters, 
with  an  eye  to  the  future,  without  any  reference  to  taking  over 
large  numbers,  should  be  given  due  consideration.  Such  a  dis- 
tribution should  be  made  as  in  these  border  areas  will  cause 
these  two  Churches  to  flow  together  because  they  have  a  mutual 
leadership,  rather  than  by  voting  and  Churches  entering  into 
this  compact.  I  lay  this  down  for  the  conscientious  determina- 
tion of  this  Commission  if  some  provision  of  that  character  shall 
not  be  made. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  We  devoted  a  large  part  of  one  entire  session 
of  this  Commission,  at  a  previous  session,  to  the  discussion  of 
these  regional  bounds.  We  had  practically  everything  before  us 
which  is  before  us  now.  If  we  take  up  the  question  now  of  the 
boundaries  of  these  regions,  we  can  discuss  the  matter  here  for 
a  week,  on  divergent  propositions,  before  we  arrive  at  any  con- 
clusion. I  therefore  move  as  a  substitute  for  the  motion  of 
Dr.  Blake,  which  I  believe  is  before  us — 

C.  A.  Pollock :  Bishop  Cannon  made  a  substitute  motion  which 
is  before  the  house. 

A.  J.  Lamar :  I  move  that  we  adhere  to  the  original  boundaries, 
as  set  forth  in  this  paper.  I  offer  that  as  a  substitute  for  every- 
thing before  us.    I  think  it  is  a  wise  thing  to  do. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  I  do  not  see  just  how  time 
would  be  saved  by  that.   It  puts  the  same  issue  in  another  form. 

Bishop  Cannon :  That  is  moving  as  a  substitute  what  is  really 
the  original  motion.  The  paper  is  before  us  as  the  original 
motion,  and  these  are  substitutes. 

A.  J.  Lamar :  I  move  the  previous  question,  then. 

This  was  not  seconded. 

P.  H.  Linn:  According  to  my  understanding  of  our  situation, 
we  have  before  us  the  motion  of  Dr.  Blake  to  refer  to  a  com- 
mittee to  report  this  afternoon.  And  the  Chair  announced  that 
it  was  seconded. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  ask  to  be  permitted  to  change  the  form  of  my 
motion  somewhat,  these  other  matters  having  been  brought  in. 
It  would  seem  to  me  that  if  they  are  to  be  considered,  as  I 
think  these  and  others  that  may  be  brought  forward  should  be 
considered,  the  committee  should  be  enlarged  to  ten,  and  we 
may  refer  Bishop  Cannon's  motion,  Dr.  Wallace's  suggested 
plan,  Dr.  Spencer's  suggested  plan,  the  suggestion  we  made  orig- 
inally, and  any  other  suggestion  any  one  may  desire  to  make, 
to  a  special  committee  of  ten,  so  that  they  can  get  together — I 
think  in  an  hour's  time  they  can  be  ready  to  report  back  to  this 
body  an  action  that  will  be  accepted  by  the  body. 

The  reference  suggested  by  Dr.  Blake  was  ordered. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  It  is  understood,  of  course, 
that  each  Commission  will  name  its  own  committee. 


456     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

P.  H.  Linn :  I  want  to  call  attention  to  the  language  I  used 
when  making  a  motion  for  a  reconsideration.  I  think  that  in 
haste  a  moment  ago  I  put  wording  into  line  4,  on  page  7,  that 
does  not  at  all  represent  the  liberal  conference  of  power  which 
we  intended  to  give  to  the  General  Conference,  in  the  matter 
of  effecting  changes  in  Regional  Conferences.  It  may  not  be 
so  in  Church  law  or  Church  courts,  but  I  am  certain  it  would 
be  so  in  State  law  or  State  courts,  that  a  conference  of  power 
to  change  would  not  confer  power  to  obliterate  or  to  create ; 
both  of  which  powers,  I  think,  ought  to  be  in  the  hands  of  the 
General  Conference.  If  I  may  make  a  word  of  further  expla- 
nation, I  will  just  say  this,  that  I  have  great  confidence  in  that 
Regional  Conference  idea.  I  want  the  General  Conference  to 
have  power  to  originate  additional  regions.  And  if  the  Regional 
Conference  proves  not  successful,  I  want  it  to  have  power  to 
reduce  the  number  of  regions.  I  do  not  believe  that  power  can 
be  conferred  under  a  statement  of  change.  So  I  move  a  recon- 
sideration of  the  vote  by  which  that  wording  was  fixed,  in  order 
to  move  this :  "to  divide  or  consolidate  Regional  Conferences 
and  to  change  their  boundaries."  Will  Dr.  Blake  listen  just  a 
moment  to  that,  since  he  made  the  other  motion?  I  want  to 
substitute  there  a  reconsideration  of  this  language,  and  have  it 
read,  ''to  divide  or  consolidate  Regional  Conferences  and  to 
change  their  boundaries." 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  I  want  to  ask  if  Dr.  Linn  does  not  think 
that  the  power  he  wishes  for  the  General  Conference  would  be 
sufficient  under  line  15  of  page  8. 

P.  H.  Linn :  I  do  not  think  so.  When  a  specific  matter  is  dealt 
with  in  law,  I  do  not  think  you  could  read  into  that  an  addi- 
tional grant  of  power  by  some  general  provision. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  wonder  if  Dr.  Linn  will  broaden  his  motion 
so  as  to  reconsider  the  whole  subject  of  Section  6. 

P.  H.  Linn :  O,  yes,  if  there  is  anything  you  want  done,  cer- 
tainly. May  I  make  my  motion  that  line  4  on  page  7  shall  be 
amended  to  read,  "to  divide  or  consolidate  Regional  Jurisdic- 
tions, and  to  change  their  boundaries"?  If  you  divide,  of  course 
you  would  have  to  create.  If  you  would  consolidate,  you  would 
have  to  limit  the  number  by  elimination.  And  the  change  would 
be  provided  for.  The  purpose  is  to  change  to  "Jurisdictions" 
instead  of  "Conferences,"  in  order  to  affect  territory  instead  of 
membership. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  Does  not  that  power  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence do  away  with  this  arrangement  which  has  been  devised  for 
the  protection  of  minorities? 

P.  H.  Linn :  No,  because  of  the  fact  that  it  could  not  be  done 
at  all  without  the  consent  of  the  Conferences  of  the  minority; 
because  they  would  operate  under  the  rule  of  the  vote  by  two- 


Louisville  Meeting 


4S7 


thirds  of  the  Regions.  Therefore  the  minority  would  be  entire- 
ly protected  in  the  vote. 

The  motion  was  read  again,  "To  divide  or  consolidate  Region- 
al Jurisdictions  and  to  change  their  boundaries." 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  You  mean  Regional  Con- 
ferences? 

P.  H.  Linn :  No ;  "Jurisdictions."  It  would  affect  the  Regional 
Conferences,  but  it  relates  to  areas  and  not  to  memberships. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  It  strikes  me  that  that  is  a 
rather  dangerous  experiment,  to  introduce  a  new  word  for  which 
there  is  elsewhere  no  definition. 

P.  H.  Linn:  It  occurs  in  Article  III.,  Section  i.  It  is  a  "Re- 
gional Jurisdiction"  that  we  want  to  effect. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  A  point  of  order.  The  question  before  us  is 
reconsideration. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  The  motion  to  reconsider 
was  carried. 

Bishop  Cooke:  I  understand,  Dr.  Linn,  that  you  drop  your 
idea  of  power  of  the  General  Conference  ever  to  obliterate  re- 
gional lines. 

P.  H.  Linn:  No.  If  you  consolidate,  you  would  necessarily 
have  to  obliterate. 

Bishop  Cooke:  Then  your  thought  is  that  it  shall  never  be  in 
the  power  of  the  General  Conference  to  do  away  with  the  Re- 
gional Conferences? 

P.  H.  Linn :  No.  I  am  trying  to  confer  that  power  as  we  had 
it  at  first  before  we  struck  out  those  words. 

Bishop  Cooke :  I  beg  to  submit  that  you  are  not  doing  the 
thing  you  are  talking  about.  You  are  not  conferring  power  upon 
the  General  Conference  to  do  away  with  the  whole  Regional 
Conference  idea. 

P.  H.  Linn :  To  do  away  with  the  Regional  Conferences  would 
have  to  be  by  constitutional  process. 

Bishop  Cooke :  You  are  making  it  impossible. 

P.  H.  Linn :  To  do  away  with  Regional  Conferences,  as  Re- 
gional Conferences,  would  require  a  constitutional  change. 

Edgar  Blake :  As  I  understand  the  purpose  of  Dr.  Linn's  mo- 
tion, it  is  to  make  provision  whereby  the  General  Conference 
might  consolidate,  if  it  see  fit  to  do  so,  two  or  more  Regional 
Conferences,  and  thus  obliterate  one  or  more  of  them. 

P.  H.  Linn :  That  is  correct. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  think  it  is  very  unwise  for  us  at  this  time 
to  write  that  into  the  Constitution.  I  think  it  will  make  for  dif- 
ficulty in  getting  our  Constitution  accepted  by  the  Church  at 
large.  In  a  sense,  these  Regional  groups  are  contracting  parties. 
That  is  implied  at  least,  I  think,  by  this  agreement.  And  I  do 
not  believe  that  we  want  to  put  it  into  the  power  of  any  body 


458     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

except  the  general  Church  itself  by  regular  constitutional  process 
to  wipe  out  of  existence  any  one  of  these  Regional  groups.  And 
I  am  quite  certain  that  if  you  change  this,  as  Dr.  Linn  has  indi- 
cated, you  will  find  people  who  will  seize  upon  the  fact  that  the 
General  Conference,  by  concurrent  action  of  two  successive  ses- 
sions, can  obliterate  one  of  these  Regional  Conferences  or  Juris- 
dictions, to  make  capital  against  this  plan  as  it  goes  down  to  the 
Church.  It  seems  to  me  the  only  thing  we  need  to  provide  for 
at  this  time  is  that  there  shall  be  power  of  legislation  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  with  the  consent  of  the  Regional  Jurisdiction 
or  Regional  Conference,  or  by  the  concurrent  action  of  two 
successive  General  Conferences,  to  make  any  desirable  changes 
in  the  boundaries  of  these  Conferences  which  we  have  estab- 
lished. Now,  under  that  proposed  action,  as  it  is  stated,  giving 
the  General  Conference  the  power  to  change  boundaries,  I  think 
it  would  be  possible  to  create  a  new  Regional  Conference. 

P.  H.  Linn:  If  to  create,  why  not  to  obliterate?  Why  cannot 
you  move  it  over  to  the  next  line? 

Edgar  Blake :  It  is  barely  possible  that  that  could  be  done.  I 
am  not  quite  sure.  The  thing  which  I  am  concerned  about  now 
is  that  we  shall  not  write  into  the  Constitution  at  this  time  a 
provision  that  invites  the  General  Conference  to  do  that  thing. 
For  the  reason,  as  I  have  already  stated,  that  I  feel  it  will  open 
a  line  of  attack  upon  the  plan  which  we  wish  to  present,  which 
we  shall  find  greatly  to  our  discomfort  as  the  debate  and  discus- 
sions proceed.  My  judgment  is  that,  in  a  matter  of  this  kind, 
the  shorter  your  line  of  defense  the  stronger  your  position  will 
be. 

Bishop  Leete  took  the  chair. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Leete)  :  I  would  like  to  know,  Dr. 
Linn,  whether  your  construction  of  this  proposition  would  make 
it  possible  for  the  General  Conference  to  reduce  the  number  of 
Regional  Conferences? 

A  Voice :  Not  if  Church  law  is  interpreted  as  civil  law  is. 

Bishop  Cranston:  Would  it  make  it  possible  to  increase  the 
number? 

P.  H.  Linn :  No,  sir. 

Bishop  Cranston :  You  cannot  consolidate  without  defining 
how  or  what  you  propose  to  consolidate.  You  are  compelled  to 
fix  the  boundaries  indicating  your  division  or  consolidation. 
But  I  do  not  see  any  need  of  your  amendment. 

P.  H.  Linn:  If  the  purpose  of  the  house  is  to  prevent  all  possi- 
ble increase  or  decrease  of  the  number,  that  is  their  privilege. 
But  they  ought  to  understand,  as  I  did  not  understand  when  the 
amendment  was  made,  that  they  are  doing  what  will  prevent 
their  enlarging  or  reducing  the  number  of  jurisdictions. 

Bishop  Cranston :  I  think  it  would  indicate  your  purpose  more 


Louisville  Meeting 


459 


clearly  if  you  put  in  the  proviso  that  the  number  of  Regional 
Conferences  shall  be  neither  increased  nor  decreased. 

P.  H.  Linn :  I  want  a  proviso  so  that  that  can  be  done.  I  want 
power  to  divide  that  great  Northwest  Region  into  two ;  and  you 
cannot  do  it  as  it  now  stands.  Of  course  anything  could  be 
done  by  constitutional  amendment. 

T.  D.  Samford:  Would  it  not  be  safer  to  leave  it  that  way? 

P.  H.  Linn :  It  would  be  more  difficult  to  do  it,  but  I  think 
the  minority  would  be  perfectly  protected  under  the  two-thirds 
rule. 

Edgar  Blake:  Do  I  understand,  Dr.  Linn,  that  you  think  that 
if  this  phrase  reads,  "to  change  the  boundaries  of  Regional  Ju- 
risdictions, but  it  shall  not  take  away  territory  from  any  Region 
without  its  consent,  save  by  the  concurrent  vote  of  two  succes- 
sive General  Conferences" — do  you  think  that  under  that  pro- 
vision the  General  Conference  would  not  have  power  to  divide 
the  Northwest  Region? 

P.  H.  Linn:  In  legal  interpretation,  a  power  to  change  is  not 
a  power  to  create.  You  can  have  the  power  to  mortgage  prop- 
erty, but  that  gives  no  power  to  sell. 

Edgar  Blake :  Then,  if  that  is  correct,  clearly  the  matter  ought 
to  have  some  addition,  because  the  chances  are  we  shall  find  that 
that  Northwest  Jurisdiction  will  have  to  be  changed. 

D.  G.  Downey:  The  change  suggested  by  Dr.  Linn  is  only  a 
restatement  in  clearer  language  of  what  was  originally  in  the 
report,  and  we  are  not  doing  any  violence  to  our  original  inten- 
tion. We  originally  had  it,  "to  divide,  consolidate,  or  change 
Regional  Conferences. "  Evidently  "Regional  Conferences" 
should  have  been  "Regional  Jurisdictions."  So  this  only  clari- 
fies the  original  meaning  and  makes  it  perfectly  clear  what  we 
intend.  Then  follows  the  proviso,  "It  cannot  take  away  terri- 
tory from  any  Regional  Conference  without  its  consent  save  by 
the  concurrent  vote  of  two  successive  General  Conferences." 
It  cannot  create  any  Regional  Conference  with  less  than  500,000 
members,  etc. 

T.  D.  Samford:  The  intention  was  to  make  it  more  definite 
and  emphatic  that  we  were  to  confer  on  the  General  Conference 
only  the  right  to  change,  not  to  create  new  Regional  Confer- 
ences or  to  obliterate  any  of  them. 

D.  G.  Downey:  I  think  originally  it  was  intended  that  the 
General  Conference  should  have  the  power  to  divide,  change, 
increase,  or  decrease,  subject  to  exact  limitations. 

T.  D.  Samford:  The  amendment  to  this  section  was  to  make 
it  more  clear  that  the  General  Conference  was  limited  in  that 
power. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  I  would  move  an  amendment  to  the  amend- 
ment proposed  by  Dr.  Linn,  by  striking  out  certain  words  and 


460     Proceedings  of  ihe  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

inserting,  so  that  it  will  read,  "increase  the  number  or  change 
the  boundaries  of  Regional  Jurisdictions. " 

T.  D.  Samford:  I  move  to  lay  the  motion  with  the  amend- 
ments on  the  table,  so  that  it  will  remain  as  it  is  now. 

On  a  count  vote,  this  motion  of  Mr.  Samford's  did  not  prevail. 

Edgar  Blake :  As  I  understand  it,  I  want  exactly  what  Dr. 
Linn  wants — namely,  the  power  to  divide  that  Northwest  Re- 
gional Conference,  or  any  other,  if  it  be  found  necessary  to  do 
so.  And  I  want  that  power  lodged  in  the  General  Conference, 
with  the  consent  of  the  Regional  Conferences  affected,  or  by 
the  concurrent  action  of  the  General  Conference  in  two  sessions 
if  the  consent  of  the  Regional  Conferences  affected  is  not  given. 
What  I  am  concerned  about  is  that  we  shall  not  give  the  General 
Conference  power  to  obliterate  or  wipe  out.  From  my  conver- 
sation with  Dr.  Linn  a  moment  ago,  I  think  his  purpose  can  be 
accomplished  and  the  desire  of  some  of  the  rest  of  us  can  be 
accomplished  if  we  will  drop  out  the  word  "consolidate"  and 
allow  it  to  stand — how  does  it  read? 

The  phrase  in  question  was  read,  as  follows :  "To  divide  or 
consolidate  Regional  Jurisdictions,  or  to  change  their  bounda- 
ries." 

Edgar  Blake :  Drop  out  the  word  "consolidate,"  and  that  takes 
out  the  power  of  the  General  Conference  to  wipe  out,  as  the 
word  "consolidate"  appears  to  give  the  General  Conference  pow- 
er to  do.  I  move  an  amendment  to  Dr.  Linn's  motion  that  the 
words  "or  consolidate"  be  stricken  out. 

P.  H.  Linn :  I  shall  not  oppose  that  except  to  state  that  my 
purpose  in  getting  the  two  words  in  there  was  to  accommodate 
the  divided  thought  in  the  Commission.  I  understand  that  our 
Church  would  like  to  have  fewer  Regional  Conferences.  It  was 
the  original  proposition  of  our  Commission  at  Savannah  to  have 
only  three.  Therefore  it  seems  to  me  that  liberty  to  go  in  both 
directions  would  be  better  than  liberty  to  go  only  in  one  direc- 
tion. 

G.  W.  Brown :  I  sympathize  with  Dr.  Linn  in  that  matter. 
I  think  it  might  become  desirable  to  consolidate.  I  think  we 
should  arrange  power  to  go  in  either  way. 

The  vote  was  taken  on  Dr.  Blake's  amendment  to  the  amend- 
ment, and  it  did  not  prevail. 

Bishop  Moore :  I  wish  you  would  let  it  stay  as  it  was.  I  think 
it  would  be  easier  for  us.  Let  it  read  simply,  "to  change  the 
boundaries  of  Regional  Conferences."  I  think  that  in  that  clause 
you  have  all  the  power  you  need — to  change  the  boundaries  and 
change  the  divisions  if  you  need  to  do  so.  It  is  a  better  phra- 
seology for  us. 

Bishop  Cranston :  Dr.  Linn  moved  to  reconsider  the  provision, 
in  order  to  propose  the  amendment  now  before  the  house. 


Louisville  Meeting 


461 


Bishop  Moore:  Is  not  his  present  motion  really  a  substitution 
for  what  was  originally  before  us?   If  it  is,  I  am  opposed  to  it. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  I  am  opposed  to  Dr.  Linn's  proposal,  because, 
while  he  does  not  intend  it,  he  is  putting  another  obstacle  in  the 
way  of  action  by  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  and,  I  think,  by  the  General  Conference 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

Secretary  Harris  read  Dr.  Linn's  motion :  "Moved  by  Dr.  Linn 
that  line  4,  page  7,  be  changed  to  read,  "To  divide  or  consolidate 
Regional  Jurisdictions,  or  to  change  their  boundaries.' " 

The  vote  was  taken  on  this  amendment,  and  it  did  not  prevail. 

P.  H.  Linn :  It  seems  to  me  that  by  consent  you  ought  to 
change  the  expression  "Regional  Conferences"  there  to  "Re- 
gional Jurisdictions,"  because  you  are  relating  to  territory  and 
not  membership  in  the  cases  where  it  occurs.  I  move  that 
where  the  expression  "Regional  Conferences"  occurs  in  para- 
graph 6,  page  7,  it  be  changed  to  "Regional  Jurisdictions." 

This  motion  prevailed. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  lines  6,  7,  and 
8,  "Nor  shall  it  create  any  new  Regional  Jurisdiction  with  less 
than  500,000  members  in  full  connection."  If  we  are  going  to 
leave  that  clause  in  there,  it  seems  to  me  that  we  certainly  ought 
to  reduce  the  limit  of  membership.  We  have  only  put  720,000 
in  that  Northwest  Jurisdiction.  And  if  it  shall  be  found  nec- 
essary to  divide  that  into  two  Jurisdictions  a  little  later,  it  clearly 
cannot  be  done,  for  the  simple  reason  that  you  cannot  make  out 
of  it  two  Jurisdictions  of  not  less  than  500,000  members  each. 
If  we  allow  that  clause  to  stand,  then  we  ought  to  reduce  the 
number  from  500,000  to  something  very  much  below  that. 

Bishop  Leete  again  took  the  chair. 

P.  H.  Linn:  It  seems  to  me  to  be  consistent  with  the  action 
just  taken  that  that  entire  clause  should  be  stricken  out  now. 
I  move  now  that  we  strike  out  the  words,  "nor  shall  it  create  any 
new  Regional  Conference  with  less  than  500,000  members  in 
full  connection." 

Edgar  Blake:  It  seems  to  me  that  if  we  leave  that  clause  in, 
it  could  be  fairly  construed  to  give  the  General  Conference  the 
power  to  divide. 

P.  H.  Linn:  That  is  what  I  am  trying  to  avoid  in  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  Church,  the  conferring  of  power  by  indirection 
which  we  are  afraid  to  give  it  power  by  vote  to  do. 

Edgar  Blake:  What  I  want  to  do  is,  to  get  power  for  the 
General  Conference  to  divide  any  one  of  these  Regional  Confer- 
ences that  may  desire  to  be  divided.  I  do  not  think  we  ought 
to  tie  our  hands  in  this  matter.  I  think  if  we  will  reduce  this 
number  here  to  meet  emergencies  that  may  arise,  and  leave  this 
clause  with  your  conception  of  it  to  stand,  a  fair  construction 


462     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

of  it  would  confer  upon  the  General  Conference  the  power  to 
do  this  thing  that  all  of  us  are  anxious  it  should  have  power  to 
do  when  it  is  necessary  that  a  Regional  Conference  be  divided. 

A  Voice:  I  do  not  favor  Dr.  Blake's  suggestion,  because  each 
Jurisdiction,  as  now  constituted,  has  many  more  than  500,000. 
If  we  allow  the  erection  of  a  new  Regional  Jurisdiction  with 
less  than  500,000,  we  shall  be  giving  those  members  much  larger 
proportional  power. 

A.  W.  Harris:  I  think  it  better  to  leave  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence full  authority  to  divide  Regional  Conferences.  Take  the 
Northwestern  Region.  You  make  impossible  at  any  early  time 
its  division  into  three  parts,  if  you  require  a  minimum  member- 
ship of  500,000.  I  think  that  Northwestern  Regional  Confer- 
ence very  unfortunate,  but  I  do  not  believe  it  can  Ge  changed 
now.  It  consists  of  three  sections,  and  can  never  become  a 
unit.  We  have  a  university  in  the  extreme  southwestern  corner, 
at  Los  Angeles;  the  beginning  of  another  one  at  Denver;  and 
in  the  next  Regional  Conference,  and  just  on  the  edge  of  it,  we 
have  Northwestern  University.  We  will  have  two  universities 
in  one  Regional  Conference  and  neither  one  will  have  the  gen- 
eral support  of  the  Region;  in  the  Northeastern  section,  we  have 
Boston  University,  Wesleyan  University,  Syracuse  University, 
etc.  And  neither  one  will  have  any  real  support  from  the  Re- 
gional Conference. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  In  the  interest  of  time,  I  suggest  that  this 
matter  may  be  wholly  changed  after  we  get  the  report  of  the 
committee  recently  appointed. 

A.  W.  Harris :  Northwestern  University  is  on  the  extreme 
western  edge  of  the  Central  Northern  Regional  Conference,  al- 
though the  trend  of  students  is  from  west  to  east.  We  may  not 
make  a  change  at  present,  but  we  ought  to  leave  it  possible  to 
divide,  when  experience  shows  that  division  ought  to  be  made, 
without  the  cumbersome  method  of  constitutional  amendment. 
No  interest  would  be  put  in  danger,  and  the  real  interests  of  the 
Church,  in  education,  might  be  greatly  served  by  the  change. 
With  the  safeguards  put  upon  General  Conference  action,  we 
may  with  entire  safety  trust  this  matter  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence when  the  facts  are  before  it. 

Edgar  Blake :  This  Regional  Conference  business  refers  to 
foreign  groups  as  well  as  to  those  in  this  country.  It  is  very 
clear  that  this  paragraph  ought  not  to  stand  in  its  present  form. 
I  move  that  the  paragraph  be  referred  to  the  committee  already 
appointed,  for  consideration  and  report  at  the  afternoon  session. 
This  is  a  substitute  for  what  is  before  us. 

This  substitute  was  adopted. 

F.  M.  Thomas:  I  want  to  ask  a  question  for  information.  I 
have  been  laboring  under  a  misapprehension.    When  our  Com- 


Louisville  Meeting 


463 


mission  at  Cleveland  agreed  to  the  change  of  the  word  "Mis- 
sionary" to  "Regional,"  I  was  under  the  impression  that  we  did 
not  change  the  missionary  status  that  we  proposed.  The  ques- 
tion that  I  wish  to  ask  is — it  comes  to  me  with  peculiar  force 
and  power  because  it  goes  to  the  very  heart  of  some  questions 
that  we  have  been  dealing  with — under  this  proposed  plan  of 
Regional  Conferences,  will  the  Annual  Conferences  of  the  col- 
ored membership  possess  the  constitutional  voting  power  that  in- 
heres in  the  traveling  ministry  ? 
A  Voice :  Why  not  ? 

F.  M.  Thomas:  If  that  is  so,  I  move  the  reference  of  this 
question  to  a  committee.  If  I  had  known  that  was  true,  I  would 
never  have  consented  to  it.  I  have  been  exceedingly  sympa- 
thetic toward  the  proposal  of  the  committee.  I  laid  down  the 
proposition  at  Cleveland  that  you  cannot  compass  two  contra- 
dictory propositions  by  organic  law.  Is  it  possible  that  I  was 
mistaken  in  that?  It  seems  that  in  the  proposed  solution  there 
has  been  a  very  wonderful  advance.  In  fact,  the  concept  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  acts  for  a  time,  and  then  when  it 
reaches  a  certain  point  the  concept  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  operates  for  a  time.  I  will  say  this,  that  the 
great  problem  of  unification  lies  so  close  to  my  heart  that  I 
might  bring  myself  enthusiastically  to  support  that;  but  you 
come  to  the  great  body  of  the  electorate,  the  official  source  of 
power,  and  ask  the  Church,  South — that  is  what  is  meant  in 
this  proposition — to  accept  an  interpretation  which  I  cannot  think 
she  will  accept  at  this  time. 

D.  G.  Downey :  Please  state  your  exact  point. 

F.  M.  Thomas :  The  point  is  this,  that  the  Annual  Conferences 
of  the  colored  membership  will  have  the  same  voting  power  on 
constitutional  questions  that  any  other  Annual  Conference  in 
the  reorganized  Church  will  have.  The  limit  of  five"  per  cent 
does  not  apply  to  the  Annual  Conferences.  It  cannot  do  it,  be- 
cause that  is  an  inherent  right  of  the  traveling  ministry. 

Bishop  Cooke :  If  this  Constitution  confers  the  right  in  the 
new  Church,  where  does  the  right  come? 

F.  M.  Thomas :  Let  me  go  a  little  further.  I  am  sure  Dr. 
Jones  will  not  misunderstand  me.  The  principle  I  have  laid 
down  at  Cleveland  I  have  not  heard  answered,  that  all  races 
have  an  absolute  right  to  free  development,  but  that  immature 
races  cannot  function  freely  in  mature  society  until  they  them- 
selves become  mature.  It  means,  very  frankly,  saying  to  the 
ministry  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  "If  you 
adopt  this  plan,  you  must  consent  to  give  to  the  colored  mem- 
bership now  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  the  same  con- 
stitutional power  that  you  have."  With  their  concept  of  the 
functioning  power  of  races,  it  will  be  very  difficult  to  convince 


464     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

them  that  they  can  justly  do  it.  As  I  take  it,  to  put  into  imma- 
ture hands  mature  power  is  a  sin  against  the  world  order.  Sup- 
pose I  should  go  to  my  Conference  and  they  should  ask  me, 
"Why  did  you  do  this?"  I  might  say,  "Out  of  my  love  and  de- 
sire for  the  reorganization  of  American  Methodism,  for  the  great 
good  that  would  come."  They  could  very  frankly  say  to  me, 
in  the  words  of  a  great  American  sociologist,  "Equal  privileges 
among  unequals  is  gross  injustice."  It  is  true  that  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South,  might  perhaps  be  persuaded — I 
do  not  know — to  agree  to  give  to  the  present  traveling  colored 
ministry  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  this  power,  out  of 
its  desire  to  get  the  great  good  that  would  come  from  unifica- 
tion. But,  brethren,  it  cannot  transfer  to  any  future  minister 
who  came  into  that  Church  this  same  power,  with  its  conception 
of  life.  Now  this  is  true.  If  the  colored  Conferences  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  are  competent  to  function  freely, 
then  they  ought  to  have  this  power.  But  we  have  both  said,  by 
these  two  plans,  that  there  ought  to  be  a  limitation  on  their  func- 
tioning power  in  the  General  Conference,  because  of  immaturity. 
I  said  at  Cleveland  that  if  I  believed  that  the  colored  membership 
was  fully  competent  to  function  freely  in  the  life  of  the  Church, 
I  would  cut  off  my  right  arm  before  I  would  agree  to  any  limi- 
tations of  power  on  their  part.  In  this  plan  we  have  said  that 
they  are  not  fully  competent  to  function  freely.  We  have  put  a 
limitation  there.  You  put  a  limitation  in  the  General  Confer- 
ence. But  there  is  a  far  more  serious  problem  involved  in  your 
Annual  Conferences,  the  very  source  and  fountain  of  power. 
Shall  these  2,000  men,  more  or  less,  who,  I  trust,  will  soon  come 
to  their  full  functioning  power — I  am  satisfied  that  some  of  them 
have;  and  some  I  know  have  not — can  you  give  to  them  the 
same  functioning  constitutional  power  that  is  now  possessed  by 
the  traveling  ministry  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South? 
Therefore  I  move,  because  it  is  fundamental  with  me,  the  ref- 
erence of  that  question  to  that  special  committee. 

D.  G.  Downey :  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  necessity  for  re- 
ferring that  to  the  special  committee.  Because  if  it  should 
transpire  that  our  brethren  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  are  a  unit  on  that  matter,  we  do  not  need  to  spend  any 
more  time  here.  Of  course  we  may  have  been  sinning  for  a 
number  of  years;  but  we  have  taken  that  position.  If  the  mat- 
ter were  carried  to  its  logical  conclusion,  you  would  have  to  put 
some  sort  of  a  measuring  rod  on  the  mentality  of  every  man, 
to  know  whether  he  had  sufficient  intellectual  and  spiritual  ca- 
pacity to  function  freely.  I  have  no  question  that  there  are 
some  brethren  of  our  colored  membership  who  may  not  be  at 
the  highest  point  of  intellectual  and  spiritual  development.  I 
am  very  sure  it  is  equally  true  with  the  white  membership  in  our 


Louisville  Meeting 


465 


Annual  Conferences.  Probably  the  brethren  of  the  Church, 
South,  find  the  same  difference  among  their  members. 

A  Voice:  Do  you  mean  to  use  the  phrase  "equally  true  of  the 
white  members  of  your  Church"? 

D.  G.  Downey :  Yes.  And  also  with  reference  to  some  of  the 
members  of  the  white  Conferences  of  the  Church,  South.  I 
said  it  was  "equally  true."  If  we  are  going  to  go  back  to  that 
fundamental  question  and  disturb  everything  of  that  sort,  if 
we  did  not  know  our  minds  when  we  reached  that  conclusion,  I 
think  there  is  no  use  in  our  spending  any  more  time  here.  I 
think  I  know  the  position  of  our  brethren  on  that  matter. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  I  hope  that  the  motion  to  refer  this  to  the 
committee  will  be  adopted,  and  let  the  committee  consider  it  and 
bring  it  in  for  the  report. 

On  motion  of  Edgar  Blake,  the  time  was  extended. 

R.  E.  Jones:  I  want  to  make  just  one  remark,  without  discuss- 
ing the  matter.  I  want  to  express  my  surprise  at  the  remarks 
made  by  Dr.  Thomas.  And  further  to  say  that  I  do  not  under- 
stand that  that  is  the  position  of  the  South.  I  live  in  the  South.  I 
was  born  there,  I  live  there,  was  reared  there.  I  suppose  I  shall 
live  nowhere  else.  What  is  the  accepted  theory  of  the  South? 
I  suppose  it  is  that  those  of  us  who  can  quality,  vote.  I  vote. 
I  would  not  live  anywhere  where  I  could  not  vote.  In  Louisiana 
there  is  quite  a  group  of  us  that  vote.  We  have  an  educational 
and  property  test.  I  did  not  know  it  was  particularly  shocking 
that,  if  a  man  owned  certain  property  and  has  certain  mental 
qualifications,  he  should  vote.  It  is  certain  that  in  New  Or- 
leans such  a  man  can  vote.  This  matter  of  voting  of  Methodist 
ministers  on  constitutional  questions  as  stated  by  Dr.  Thomas 
is  all  the  more  surprising  to  me,  when  you  know  that  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  fixes  the  qualifications  and  the  methods  by  which 
men  come  into  the  ministry.  It  fixes  the  prescribed  course  of 
study.  I  simply  want  to  express  my  surprise  and  say,  as  a 
counter  to  Dr.  Thomas,  that  we  will  never  agree  to  anything 
else.  That  is  a  big  question.  If  you  wish  to  talk  of  disfranchis- 
ing me,  I  do  not  believe  the  Church  will  stand  for  it.  We  can- 
not agree  to  any  such  thing  as  that.  I  do  not  believe  that  that 
is  the  position  of  the  country,  the  nation,  or  the  world.  It  is 
not  the  position  of  the  Supreme  Court,  which  has  sent  down  its 
decision.  It  is  not  the  position  of  the  court  of  Texas  that  ren- 
dered a  decision  the  other  day.  A  little  group  of  us,  all  from 
the  South — that  is  the  only  thing  that  keeps  us  quiet. 

Bishop  Cannon :  Is  Dr.  Thomas's  motion  that  this  shall  be  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  of  Fourteen,  or  to  what  committee? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Leete)  :  That  small  committee  that  is 
to  deal  with  the  committee  on  rephrasing. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  had  understood  that  this  matter,  was  de- 

30 


466     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

termined  when  we  discussed  that  question  of  the  two-thirds  or 
three-fourths.  The  question  of  how  the  Constitution  shall  be 
amended  was  taken  up  in  each  delegation,  or  in  ours,  separately, 
and  we  brought  in  our  proposition,  that  we  preferred  a  change 
from  two-thirds  to  three-fourths,  and  that  we  preferred  that 
there  should  be  the  additional  safeguard  on  constitutional  amend- 
ments that  the  Regional  Conferences  could  block  that  motion — 
this  or  any  other.  I  should  greatly  have  preferred,  if  Dr. 
Thomas  had  this  in  his  mind,  that  this  question  could  have  been 
brought  up  at  that  time,  and  we  could  have  discussed  it  as  a 
delegation.  I  prefer  that  now,  really.  I  would  particularly  pre- 
fer, if  this  question  is  to  become  a  serious  one,  that  it  be  dis- 
cussed by  our  Commission.  Just  now  I  cannot  see  with  Dr. 
Thomas.  I  am  very  sympathetic  with  the  position  of  Dr.  Jones, 
as  just  stated,  that  this  is  not  exactly  the  same  as  ordinary  vot- 
ing of  the  mass  of  the  people;  that  it  is  the  voting  of  a  picked 
body  which  has  had  training,  and  has  stood  certain  tests,  and 
that  we  have  protected  the  constitutional  changes  by  these  two 
methods.    Personally,  I  have  no  fear  on  that  point. 

Bishop  Cranston :  I  am  almost  as  much  surprised  as  Brother 
Mouzon  was  the  other  afternoon.  I  hope  my  surprise  will  prove 
to  be  as  baseless  as  his  was.  It  appeared  to  us  that  when  we 
had  settled  the  matter  of  the  recognition  of  our  negro  member- 
ship in  the  reorganization,  we  had  come  to  the  end  of  that  very 
much  discussed  question.  This  would  be,  to  my  thought,  a  revo- 
lutionary, rather  than  a  conservative  movement,  if  I  get  Dr. 
Thomas's  idea  as  to  the  rights  which  inhere  in  the  Methodist 
ministry  as  such.  Surely  these  brethren  who  would  be  entitled 
to  vote  upon  a  constitutional  amendment  are  ministers  in  regular 
standing  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  ought  to  be  in 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  as  reorganized.  It  would  seem 
to  be  not  only  a  matter  of  inconsistency,  but  a  matter  of  injus- 
tice, even  to  debate  the  right  of  the  man  to  vote  upon  a  consti- 
tutional amendment  who  had  been  declared  qualified  to  preach 
the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  under  the  commission  of  our  Church 
or  of  any  other  Church.  What  is  there  in  voting  upon  a  consti- 
tutional amendment  that  is  more  important  than  setting  forth 
in  intelligible  fashion  the  gospel  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ?  What 
is  there  in  the  mere  casting  of  a  vote  upon  any  question  that 
may  come  up,  with  nineteen-twentieths  of  the  General  Conference 
consisting  of  the  better  qualified,  better  prepared  constituency — 
what  is  there  that  can  come  up  that  would  be  imperiled?  It  strikes 
me  that  it  would  have  to  be  proved  that  the  recognition  of  this 
inherent  right  by  the  colored  ministers  who  would  belong  to  the 
reorganized  Church  would  be  perilous  to  the  Church  or  in  some 
way  a  hindrance  to  its  progress  and  welfare.  More  than  that, 
jt  would  strike  me  as  a  move  directly  in  opposition  to  the  spirit 


Louisz'ille  Meeting 


467 


of  democracy  which  is  now,  we  hope,  to  prevail  throughout  the 
world.  There  is  an  extreme,  of  course;  an  extreme  indulgence 
in  the  matter  of  suffrage,  in  the  cruder  conceptions  of  the  de- 
mocracy. In  this  country  we  have  passed  the  Rubicon.  We 
have  crossed  over,  and  we  cannot  and  do  not  in  any  of  our 
States,  or  in  our  governmental  restrictions,  bring  men  born  in 
America  to  the  test.  I  do  not  want  to  go  into  a  discussion  of 
the  whole  matter  now.  I  cannot  vote  to  refer  a  question  of  this 
kind  to  the  committee. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  I  do  not  want  to  make  a  speech.  Dr.  Thomas 
has  been  misunderstood.  You  have  been  debating  this  as  if  it 
were  a  question  of  disfranchising  all  the  colored  preachers  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  voting  in  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences. That  was  not  Dr.  Thomas's  intention.  His  intention  was 
to  put  the  same  limitation  on  the  total  of  that  vote  that  you 
have  already  put  on  the  negro  vote  in  the  General  Conference. 
Something,  if  it  can  be  worked  (though  I  do  not  see  how  it  can 
be),  something  like  a  proviso,  "provided  that  the  total  vote  of 
the  negro  Annual  Conferences  shall  never  be  counted  as  more 
than  five  per  cent  of  all  the  Conferences." 

P.  H.  Linn :  Would  there  be  any  chance  of  getting  the  com- 
mittee's report  by  2  130? 

C.  M.  Bishop :  I  move  to  adjourn  to  meet  at  three  o'clock. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  wonder  if  we  cannot  have  unanimous  consent 
to  vote  upon  this  question  to  refer.   Let  us  settle  it. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Leete)  :  If  there  is  no  objection. 

Voices:  Vote,  vote. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Leete)  :  The  present  motion  is  sus- 
pended, and  the  question  is  on  the  question  of  referring  the  mat- 
ter proposed  by  Dr.  Thomas  to  the  small  committee  of  two  from 
each  side. 

Bishop  Cooke:  Will  Dr.  Thomas  state  the  exact  intent  of  his 
proposal  ? 

F.  M.  Thomas :  Whether  it  is  possible  to  apply  something  of 
the  same  principle  which  is  applied  to  the  General  Conference 
to  the  Annual  Conferences,  the  very  source  of  power. 

The  vote  was  taken,  and  Dr.  Thomas's  motion  to  refer  was 
declared  not  to  prevail. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  It  seems  to  me  that  the  house  should  be  will- 
ing to  refer  anything. 

The  vote  being  taken  again  on  a  division,  it  was  declared  that 
the  motion  did  prevail. 

The  Committee  of  Ten  ordered  above  was  announced  to  be 
constituted  as  follows:  From  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Commis- 
sion, Bishop  Cooke,  Edgar  Blake,  J.  J.  Wallace,  C.  A.  Pollock, 
James  R.  Joy;  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 


468     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


Commission,  Bishop  Moore,  E.  B.  Chappell,  R.  S.  Hyer,  C.  C. 
Selecman,  P.  D.  Maddin. 

At  his  own  request,  Dr.  Joy  was  dropped  from  the  committee, 
and  G.  W.  Brown  was  put  in  his  place. 

Secretary  Harris  read  a  communication  from  the  White 
House,  addressed  to  Bishop  Cranston,  as  follows : 

The  White  House,  Washington, 
January  16,  1920. 

My  Dear  Bishop  Cranston:  Allow  me  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of 
your  telegram  of  January  15,  and  to  say  that  I  have  had  pleasure  in 
handing  it  to  Mrs.  Wilson,  with  the  request  that  she  read  it  to  the  Presi- 
dent at  the  first  opportunity.  With  the  hope  that  you  are  in  good  health, 
and  that  your  labors  at  Louisville  may  be  crowned  with  success,  I  am, 

Sincerely  yours,  J.  P.  Tumulty,  Secretary  to  the  President. 

Announcements  were  made. 

Edgar  Blake :  Would  it  be  in  order  to  move  that  the  committee 
to  be  created  on  the  Regional  Conferences  be  requested  to  meet 
at  2  p.m.?  I  move  that  that  committee  be  requested  to  meet  in 
this  room  at  that  time. 

This  motion  prevailed. 

The  Commission  adjourned  at  12:47  p.m.,  to  reconvene  at 
three  o'clock,  the  benediction  being  pronounced  by  C.  C.  Selec- 
man. 

Afternoon  Session. 

At  3:11  p.m.  Bishop  Cranston  called  the  Joint  Commission  to 
order. 

The  hymn,  "More  love  to  thee,  O  Christ,"  was  sung,  after 
which  P.  H.  Linn  offered  prayer. 

Bishop  Cranston  read  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Romans. 
Judge  C.  A.  Pollock  offered  prayer. 

The  minutes  of  the  morning  session  were  read  by  Secretary 
Harris,  and  with  slight  correction  were  approved. 

The  roll  was  called  and  the  following  were  present:  Bishops 
Earl  Cranston,  F.  D.  Leete,  R.  J.  Cooke,  Collins  Denny,  E.  D. 
Mouzon,  J.  M.  Moore,  James  Cannon,  Jr.  Ministers :  Edgar 
Blake,  D.  G.  Downey,  R.  E.  Jones,  A.  J.  Nast,  Frank  Neff,  C. 

B.  Spencer,  J.  W.  Van  Cleve,  J.  J.  Wallace,  W.  J.  Young,  C. 
M.  Bishop,  E.  B.  Chappell,  T.  N.  Ivey,  A.  J.  Lamar,  P.  H.  Linn, 

C.  C.  Selecman,  J.  E.  Dickey,  F.  M.  Thomas.  Laymen :  G. 
W.  Brown,  A.  W.  Harris,  I.  G.  Penn,  Rolla  V.  Watt,  J.  R. 
Joy,  C.  W.  Kinne,  C.  A.  Pollock,  E.  L.  Kidney,  H.  N.  Snyder, 
P.  D.  Maddin,  J.  R.  Pepper,  R.  S.  Hyer,  J.  H.  Reynolds,  R.  E. 
Blackwell,  T.  D.  Samford,  J.  G.  McGowan. 

Bishop  Mouzon  took  the  chair. 

The  Chairman  announced  that  Dr.  Selecman  takes  the  place 


Louisville  Meeting 


469 


of  Dr.  Lamar  on  the  committee  appointed  to  prepare  the  pre- 
amble. 

Bishop  Cannon :  The  committee  on  rephrasing  Article  V., 
relating  to  the  negro  representation  in  the  General  Conference, 
is  ready  to  report.  Dr.  Joy  will  present  the  report,  he  being  the 
Secretary. 

J.  R.  Joy  presented  the  report,  as  follows : 

The  matter  relates  to  what  is  on  page  5  of  the  report,  Article  V.  We 
recommend  to  amend  Article  V.  as  follows: 

1.  On  page  5,  line  25,  Section  1,  strike  out  all  of  line  25,  and  insert: 
"Section  1.  The  General  Conference  shall  consist  of  not  less  than  670 
and  not  more  than  850  ministerial  and  lay  delegates  in  equal  numbers, 
as  the  General  Conference  may  determine,  who  shall  be  apportioned  to  the 
several  Regional  Jurisdictions  according  to  a  uniform  rule  to  be  estab- 
lished by  the  General  Conference,  subject  to  the  further  limitations  and 
provisions  of  this  article.    It  shall  be  composed  as  follows." 

2.  Amend  subsection  (a),  page  5,  lines  27  and  28,  by  striking  out  the 
words  from  "chosen"  to  "determine,"  both  inclusive.  And  in  line  28, 
substitute  the  word  "Jurisdictions"  for  the  word  "Conferences." 

3.  Amend  (b),  page  6,  line  4,  by  striking  out  the  word  "forty"  and  in- 
serting the  word  "forty-two"  in  its  place.  Also,  on  the  same  page,  lines 
5  and  6,  amend  by  striking  out  the  words  from  "chosen"  to  "determine," 
both  inclusive. 

4.  Amend  (c),  page  6,  lines  11  and  12,  by  striking  out  the  words  from 
"chosen"  to  "determine,"  both  inclusive. 

5.  As  to  the  matter  of  placing  limitations  upon  the  voting  power  of 
members  of  colored  Annual  Conferences,  as  suggested  by  Dr.  Thomas 
and  referred  to  this  committee,  it  is  the  unanimous  judgment  of  the  com- 
mittee that  no  further  action  be  taken. 

Bishop  Moore :  I  move  that  we  take  it  up  seriatim. 
The  motion  was  seconded  and  prevailed. 
The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  first  item,  that  it  may  be  clearly  before  us. 
This  was  done. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  think  perhaps  it  will  not  be  out  of  order 
for  me  to  make  a  statement  which  may  go  beyond  simply  that 
first  paragraph,  because  it  will  save  time.  The  paragraph  just 
read  uses  the  numbers  670  and  850.  We  found  that  650  would 
not  be  the  proper  number,  unless  we  changed  the  basis  of  rep- 
resentation in  the  Regional  Conferences.  Six  Regional  Con- 
ferences with  100  members  each  would  have  600.  Thirty  is  a 
minimum  for  the  colored  jurisdiction,  and  10  is  a  minimum 
from  each  of  the  four  foreign  jurisdictions;  which  would  make 
a  minimum  of  670.  So  we  put  that  in  instead  of  650,  as  had 
been  proposed.  We  put  in  the  paragraph  just  read  the  state- 
ment as  to  the  determination  of  the  number  by  the  General  Con- 
ference, and  so  we  struck  it  out  to-day  in  (b)  and  (c).  That 
follows,  it  is  true,  in  the  rest  of  the  report;  but  it  is  involved  in 
the  fact  that  in  this  first  paragraph  we  commence  the  statement, 


470     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


"chosen  in  such  number,  etc.,  as  the  General  Conference  may  de- 
termine." That  is  covered  already,  and  so  it  is  omitted.  The 
figures  30  and  42  are  the  result  of  the  calculation  which  we  have 
by  the  Year  Book.  Five  per  cent  of  the  membership  of  the 
General  Conference  would  give  to  the  colored  jurisdiction  42. 
The  figures,  as  Dr.  Joy  has  compiled  them  from  the  Year  Books 
of  the  two  Churches,  total  6,028,692;  negro  membership,  303,372. 
The  percentage  of  the  negro  membership  as  we  have  it  on  the 
above  total  is  5.02.  So  that,  on  the  basis  of  membership,  as  we 
have  it  by  our  latest  official  Year  Books,  five  per  cent  is  just  as 
close  as  we  can  get  it.  Forty-two  will  cover  it,  so  we  recommend 
that  that  be  inserted. 

R.  E.  Jones :  It  is  figured  that  we  have  303,000  colored  mem- 
bers. There  are  upwards  of  2,000  colored  members  in  the  New 
York  East  Conference  who,  I  am  sure,  are  not  figured  in  that 
basis.  There  are  four  or  five  hundred  in  the  New  England  Con- 
ference; something  like  1,500  or  2,000  in  the  Southern  Califor- 
nia Conference.  And  the  very  moment  that  a  colored  Regional 
Conference  is  established  automatically,  I  suppose,  all  those 
Churches  come  into  some  negro  Conference.  If  it  is  true,  then 
they  ought  to  figure  in  the  basis.  Now,  42  or  44?  Forty-fou*- 
would  mean  considerable,  if  it  avoided  leaving  out  an  Annual 
Conference  or  Mission  Conference  from  having  an  actual  rep- 
resentation in  the  General  Conference.  Two  might  not  amount 
to  much,  but  it  might  amount  to  a  good  deal,  if  that  barred  one 
lay  and  one  ministerial  delegate.  There  is  no  attempt  here  to 
swell  the  number.  I  wish  to  be  perfectly  fair,  but  I  am  careful 
that  we  guard  at  this  point  against  any  embarrassment  which 
we  may  have  in  fixing  upon  our  delegation  in  the  General  Con- 
ference. Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  first  part  of  that  reso- 
lution covers  pretty  clearly  the  whole  case,  without  saying  it 
shall  be  not  less  than  30  or  more  than  42.  I  could  wish  that  the 
resolution  could  stand  as  it  reads,  "ministerial  and  lay  delegates 
in  equal  numbers,  chosen  .  .  .  from  the  colored  Regional  Juris- 
diction." The  limitation  of  five  per  cent,  or  whatever  it  is,  pre- 
vents going  beyond  that  point,  very  clearly.  In  this  way  we  fix 
it  twice.  The  General  Conference  is  given  power  to  apportio' 
to  the  Region  according  to  a  principle  that  obtains  later  on  in 
this  document ;  and  it  seems  to  me  superfluous  to  say  that  it  shall 
not  be  more  than  42  or  less  than  30.  I  know  why  we  say  that 
a  Regional  Conference  shall  not  have  less  than  100:  We  do  not 
want  the  Regional  Conferences  to  be  too  small.  I  wish  it  were 
possible  for  you  to  see  it  as  I  do.  I  do  insist  that  when  you 
get  down  to  figuring  it  out  squarely,  we  shall  have  just  what 
our  membership  entitles  us  to.  You  take  New  York  East  Con- 
ference, New  England  Conference,  and  Southern  California  Con- 
ference, and  those  are  very  clear  cases.    Moreover  we  have 


Louisville  Meeting 


4/1 


some  Conferences,  as  they  are  now  constituted,  with  less  than 
14,000  members.  We  would  be  embarrassed  in  electing  dele- 
gates from,  say,  the  Virginia  or  the  Central  Alabama  Confer- 
ence unless  we  have  some  way  to  determine  how  these  delegates 
shall  be  determined  as  to  number.  All  I  am  anxious  for  is  that 
we  shall  not  be  embarrassed  among  ourselves  when  we  get  to 
the  point  of  electing  our  delegates.  Feeling  as  I  do  that  the 
whole  proposition  is  sufficiently  hedged  when  we  leave  it  in  the 
power  of  the  General  Conference  and  with  the  constitutional 
provision  that  it  shall  not  go  beyond  a  certain  percentage,  with 
the  understanding,  of  course,  that  whatever  our  membership 
is  now  it  shall  be  the  basis  of  our  record,  I  simply  make  that 
suggestion  in  the  interest  of  fairness,  in  the  interest  of  freeing 
us  from  any  especial  embarrassment  that  may  come  later  on. 

Bishop  Cannon:  May  we  have  the  item  read  again?  It  seems 
to  me  that  part  of  it  is  covered.  Let  us  listen  carefully  to  the 
rereading.   Read  the  first  item  before  us. 

I.  G.  Penn :  If  I  understand,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  states  that 
according  to  our  membership,  as  set  forth  in  the  latest  Year 
Book,  we  should  be  entitled  to  42  members  in  the  General  Con- 
ference. Then,  that  being  proportionate  representation  for  the 
membership  as  it  now  is,  why  state  "32"?  It  strikes  me  that  if 
it  read  "of  not  more  than  42  members,"  which  covers  the  pres- 
ent membership,  it  would  save  the  embarrassment  that  is  likely 
to  arise  among  our  colored  people,  and  it  would  not  change  it 
at  all.  It  would  give  us  the  actual  representation  which  Bishop 
Cannon  says  we  are  entitled  to. 

D.  G.  Downey:  This  simply  establishes  the  upper  limit — "not 
more  than  42."  In  a  smaller  Conference,  they  would  have  only 
their  proportionate  number. 

I.  G.  Penn:  If  we  put  it  "not  over  42,"  it  covers  the  same 
thing  as  in  this  proposal. 

Bishop  Cannon:  That  is  simply  following  the  same  method 
that  we  followed  in  reference  to  the  white  Regional  Conferences, 
"of  not  less  than  100,"  etc.  We  give  the  limit  at  both  ends  for 
the  other,  too.  We  are  simply  having  a  similar  method  of  state- 
ment. 

Bishop  Moore :  It  does  not  seem  to  me  that  Brother  Penn  is 
asking  anything  unreasonable.  The  reason  we  put  the  other  in 
there,  "100,"  is  because  we  never  want  it  to  be  less  than  100. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  was  going  to  say  to  Dr.  Penn  that  if  you  take 
out  that  minimum  representation  32,  it  will  then  be  possible,  as- 
suming that  the  colored  membership  decreases,  to  go  below  that 
number.  It  seems  to  me  that  that  minimum  representation  pro- 
tects our  colored  membership.  In  the  last  years  there  has  been 
a  slight  decrease  in  the  colored  membership.  If  it  keeps  on,  it 
would  be  to  your  interest  to  keep  the  minimum  number  in.  I 


472     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

am  sure  we  want  to  do  what  our  colored  brethren  want;  but 
I  have  some  doubt  as  to  the  wisdom  of  your  withdrawing  that 
minimum  representation. 

The  first  item  was  unanimously  adopted. 

Item  2  was  read  by  the  Secretary  and  adopted. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  hope  you  will  leave  those  words,  "chosen  in 
such  manner/'  in  the  document.  Let  me  anticipate.  Assuming 
that  the  General  Conference  assigns  delegates  to  these  Regional 
Jurisdictions  on  the  basis  of  a  ministerial  and  a  lay  delegate  to 
each  Regional  Jurisdiction  for  each  15,000  Church  members  in 
full  connection,  that  would  mean  that  Europe  and  Africa,  with 
a  membership  of  70,000,  would  be  entitled  to  ten  delegates.  But 
the  same  amendment  is  made  in  that  foreign  section.  Europe 
would  be  entitled  to  ten  delegates.  But  in  Europe  and  Africa 
you  will  find  that  we  have  one,  two,  three,  four,  five,  six,  seven, 
eight  Annual  Conferences.  Now,  how  are  you  going  to  appor- 
tion to  them  ten  delegates,  five  ministerial  and  five  lay,  among 
that  number  of  Annual  Conferences?  It  seems  to  me  you  have 
a  case  there  where  your  General  Conference  will  have  to  provide 
that  the  delegates  to  the  General  Conference  shall  be  elected 
by  the  Regional  Conference,  and  not  by  the  Annual  Conferences. 
Do  you  see  what  I  mean?  In  other  words,  you  will  have  a  sit- 
uation there  in  which  you  will  need  some  body  to  determine 
how  these  delegates  to  which  the  Regional  Jurisdiction  is  en- 
titled shall  be  chosen.  Therefore,  I  think  we  ought  to  leave  this 
in. 

Bishop  Cannon :  Does  not  the  paragraph  preceding  all  these 
sections  cover  that?  It  was  so  intended.  It  reads,  "shall  con- 
sist of  not  less  than  670  and  not  more  than  850  ministerial  and 
lay  delegates  in  equal  numbers,  as  the  General  Conference  may 
determine,  who  shall  be  apportioned  to  the  several  Regional  Ju- 
risdictions, according  to  a  uniform  rule  to  be  established  by  the 
General  Conference." 

Edgar  Blake :  No,  for  this  reason :  that  the  only  thing  you  pro- 
vided for  is  the  apportionment  by  the  General  Conference  of  the 
number  of  delegates  to  which  a  Regional  Conference  is  entitled. 
You  do  not  make  any  provision  for  the  manner  of  their  elec- 
tion. What  I  want  is  that  you  shall  allow  that  to  stand,  "chosen 
in  such  manner  as  the  General  Conference  shall  determine." 
And  I  want  it  to  stand  in  subsection  (b)  in  reference  to  the 
colored  Conference.  I  will  tell  you  why.  Personally  I  believe 
it  would  be  better  to  have  it  stand  all  the  way  through,  though 
I  can  see  how  it  will  never  be  quite  necessary  in  that  first  para- 
graph, as  it  is  in  there  too.  I  move  that  we  strike  out  the  words 
"in  such  number  and." 

This  motion  was  accepted  by  the  committee. 


Louisville  Meeting 


473 


Edgar  Blake:  Now,  in  line  II,  page  6,  strike  out  the  words  "in 
such  number  and." 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Are  you  ready  to  vote? 

A.  J.  Nast :  I  am  willing  to  vote  on  that  except  as  it  refers  to 
Regional  Jurisdictions  in  foreign  lands. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  Chair  understood  that 
you  are  considering  all  three  sections  at  once. 

A.  J.  Nast:  If  I  can  get  consent  that  only  (a)  and  (b)  be  con- 
sidered, I  will  withdraw  my  motion.  I  move  that  the  considera- 
tion be  now  only  on  (a)  and  (b). 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  In  Section  (a)  are  you 
ready  to  strike  out  "in  such  number  and"  ? 

This  was  stricken  out. 

E.  B.  Chappell:  I  was  going  to  suggest  that  maybe  after  all 
it  would  be  worth  while  for  us  to  consider  seriously  whether  it 
is  wise  to  put  in  these  numbers  30  and  42.  Conceivably,  the 
colored  membership  might  drop  down  to  100,000  in  the  United 
States,  and  still  have  30  representatives.  We  could  not  under 
this  arrangement  reduce  the  representation  in  the  General  Confer- 
ence without  a  constitutional  process,  however  low  it  might  fall. 

The  vote  was  taken,  and  "42"  was  substituted  for  "40"  in 
subsection  (b),  line  4,  page  6. 

The  motion  as  to  line  5,  page  6,  subsection  (b),  prevailed,  and 
the  words  "in  such  number  and"  were  stricken  out. 

A.  J.  Nast:  I  move  that  we  defer  acting  on  subsection  (c), 
page  6,  lines  10  to  15,  until  after  we  have  acted  on  Article  III., 
page  2,  division  C,  lines  7  to  14. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  suggest  that  just  now  we  perfect  this  para- 
graph to  make  it  accord  with  the  others.  Then,  if  necessary,  I 
will  move  to  reconsider. 

In  subsection  (c),  line  11,  page  6,  the  words  "in  such  num- 
ber and"  were  stricken  out. 

Item  5  was  taken  up. 

Bishop  Cannon:  As  a  member  of  the  committee,  I  voted  for 
that  because  I  think  that  the  end  desired  to  be  obtained  is  cov- 
ered by  the  action  we  took  on  Article  VII.,  changing  "two-thirds" 
to  "three-fourths,"  and  the  action  we  took  in  which  we  required 
that  amendments  to  the  Constitution  shall  be  subject  to  the  ob- 
jection of  two  Regional  delegations.  I  felt  that  these  two  amend- 
ments to  these  two  reports  fully  covered  the  matter  presented 
by  Dr.  Thomas,  so  far  as  I  am  personally  concerned. 

Item  5  of  the  committee's  report,  covering  the  matter  referred 
to  them,  as  suggested  by  Dr.  Thomas,  was  approved. 

On  motion  of  Bishop  Cannon,  the  report  as  a  whole  was 
adopted. 

Bishop  Moore :  We  are  providing  in  Article  IV.,  page  4,  for 
Associate  General  Conferences,  and  in  lines  19  to  23,  for  a  rep- 


474     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

reservation  of  twenty  delegates,  ten  ministerial  and  ten  lay.  It 
seems  to  me  that  we  should  put  there,  under  this  matter  of  mem- 
bership in  the  General  Conference,  "(d)  Of  twenty  ministerial 
and  lay  delegates  in  equal  numbers  from  each  Associate  General 
Conference,  chosen  in  such  manner  as  the  respective  Associate 
General  Conferences  may  determine."  I  move  that  this  be  added. 

Edgar  Blake :  Inasmuch  as  it  is  already  covered  in  Article 
IV.,  do  we  need  to  repeat  it  ? 

Bishop  Moore :  The  thing  to  do  is  to  put  it  back  here  where  it 
would  really  belong. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  think  it  ought  not  to  be  put  in  in  that  way. 
As  I  recall,  in  your  motion  you  did  not  place  any  limitation  on 
the  matter  of  voice  or  vote. 

Bishop  Moore :  You  provide  for  that  under  Article  IV. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  would  suggest,  then,  that  you  phrase  your 
resolution  or  paragraph  to  make  it  as  it  is  here,  "ten  ministerial 
and  ten  lay  delegates  from  each  Associate  General  Conference, 
as  provided  in  Article  IV." 

Bishop  Moore :  You  might  say  "with  such  powers  as  provided 
in  Article  IV." 

Edgar  Blake :  Something  of  that  sort. 

Bishop  Moore :  I  accept  your  addition. 

Bishop  Denny :  Would  you  not  accomplish  exactly  the  same 
thing  if  you  transfer  the  paragraph,  page  4,  lines  19  to  23,  as 
(d),  so  as  to  bring  all  the  membership  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence together  on  page  6?  Instead  of  leaving  it  here,  just  bring 
it  in  over  there.  Then  you  would  have  all  the  membership  of 
the  General  Conference  grouped  together. 

Bishop  Moore :  I  want  it  grouped  under  the  membership  of 
the  General  Conference.  I  think,  if  you  repeat  it,  nothing  would 
be  hurt. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  do  not  see  the  necessity  of  it.  It  is  already 
covered. 

Bishop  Moore :  I  think  the  membership  of  the  General  Con- 
ference should  be  grouped  under  the  subject  "Membership,"  and 
that  this  very  part  of  the  membership  should  appear  under  the 
article  "Membership." 

P.  H.  Linn :  It  seems  to  me  it  would  become  necessary  under 
"Associate  General  Conferences"  to  make  provision  for  the  mem- 
bership of  the  Associate  General  Conferences  in  the  General 
Conference.    It  works  both  ways. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  call  your  attention  to  another  difficulty  in  the 
case.  You  have  said  in  your  opening  statement  in  this  Article  V. 
that  the  General  Conference  shall  consist  of  not  less  than  670 
nor  more  than  850,  and  shall  be  composed  as  follows,  (a),  (b), 
(c).    Now,  if  you  put  in  (d)  here,  the  representatives  from 


Louisville  Meeting 


475 


these  Associate  General  Conferences  count  against  your  670  or 
850. 

D.  G.  Downey :  Probably  it  would  be  given  to  an  editor  to 
harmonize  various  parts  in  the  Discipline,  and  to  adjust  them. 
This  is  really  an  editorial  matter.  Further,  the  whole  question 
of  the  Associate  General  Conference  is  problematic.  You  pro- 
vide, when  an  Associate  General  Conference  comes  into  exist- 
ence, for  a  quasi  representation  in  the  General  Conference.  It 
occurs  to  me  that  we  do  not  need  to  do  anything  about  it  just 
now. 

R.  E.  Jones:  I  want  to  say  two  things  about  that  representa- 
tion of  the  Associate  General  Conferences  in  the  General  Con- 
ference. First,  if  it  is  a  delegation,  it  ought  to  be  a  delegation. 
It  would  be  an  exceedingly  hard  matter  to  determine  what  would 
be  the  matters  that  concern  them.  If  I  were  a  delegate  from 
an  Associate  General  Conference  to  the  General  Conference,  I 
would  be  concerned  in  everything  that  went  on.  I  now  have 
my  first  chance  to  say  that  I  do  not  quite  see  why  we  load  up 
a  constitution  with  provisions  for  an  Associate  General  Confer- 
ence when  we  do  not  have  material  in  sight  for  an  Associate 
General  Conference.  It  makes  me  feel  as  if  somewhere  it  is 
contemplated  that  the  Associate  General  Conference  will  come 
into  being,  and  that  as  a  somewhat  ordinary  man  I  cannot  quite 
appreciate  the  assuming  that  some  400,000  members  will  some- 
time have  a  desire  to  be  formed  into  an  Associate  General  Con- 
ference; and  you  put  it  into  the  Constitution  that  you  cannot 
have  an  Associate  General  Conference  unless  it  is  asked  for. 
We  are  reading  into  the  minds  of  that  400,000  members  a  de- 
sire to  become  an  Associate  General  Conference,  or  else  it  is  a 
sort  of  coercion  and  suggestion  that  "we  would  like  to  have  you 
as  an  Associate  General  Conference."  I  grant  you  that  there 
is  enough  pressure  put  upon  us  to  keep  us  from  being  particu- 
larly enthusiastic  about  getting  men  into  the  kingdom.  I  wish 
this  Associate  General  Conference  was  not  there  at  all.  That 
is  my  point.  We  are  not  going  to  erect  an  Associate  General 
Conference  now.  We  have  not  a  single  desire — certainly,  speak- 
ing for  my  people,  there  is  no  desire.  I  think  I  know  my  mind 
better  than  you  do.  You  certainly  cannot  quite  know  just  how 
I  think.  If  you  think  that  I  think  that  I  am  going  to  an  Asso- 
ciate General  Conference,  you  are  wrong.  I  do  not  want  to  see 
that  in  a  constitution,  when  you  have  no  material  for  an  Asso- 
ciate General  Conference  in  sight.  Now,  assuming  that  all  we 
have  done  is  in  utter  good  faith,  and  that  we  are  satisfied  with 
the  limitation  of  five  per  cent,  and  that  we  are  willing,  under 
five  per  cent,  if  we  grow  to  450,000,  still  to  sustain  that  same 
relation,  why  do  we  have  this  sort  of  trapdoor  that  might  spring 
sometime  when  we  are  not  quite  conscious  of  it!    You  cannot 


476     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

put  that  in  there  without  its  being  interpreted  as  the  ultimate 
hope  of  the  Church.  It  is  an  invitation — I  know  it  is — to  be- 
come an  Associate  General  Conference.  I  want  to  put  myself  on 
record  as  knowing  what  I  am  walking  onto. 

Bishop  Moore:  I  will  withdraw  my  motion.  I  think,  how- 
ever, that  since  that  is  withdrawn  it  would  be  a  splendid  thing 
to  transfer  that  paragraph  from  its  present  place  and  make  it  a 
third  privilege. 

C.  B.  Spencer:  In  a  very  hurried  glance  through  the  report  of 
the  Commission  on  Unification  to  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  in  May,  1918,  it  is  my  rec- 
ollection that  I  do  not  find  any  reference  to  the  Associate  Gen- 
eral Conference  until  the  Savannah  meeting.  It  was  not  in  the 
Chattanooga  proposition,  but  has  come  along  in  the  evolution  of 
our  proceedings.  I  wonder  if  the  Joint  Commission  have  taken 
into  account  all  that  is  implied  in  this  matter.  I  was  drawn  to 
it  first  of  all  by  studying  the  situation  in  South  America.  For 
it  is  proposed  that  one  of  the  Regional  Conferences  shall  include 
Mexico,  Panama,  Porto  Rico^  Bolivia,  the  North  Andes  Mission, 
the  Argentine,  Brazil  (larger  than  the  entire  United  States), 
and  Cuba.  This  is  a  pretty  large  proposition.  In  the  last  few 
minutes  I  have  taken  up  the  Year  Book  of  the  Church,  South, 
and  our  own;  and  as  nearly  as  I  can  get  at  it  now,  the  Church, 
South,  has  about  12,000  members  in  Cuba  and  Brazil  and  the 
border  Mexican  Conferences.  Bishop  Moore  will  correct  me  in 
a  minute  if  I  am  mistaken.  We  have  just  about  the  same  num- 
ber in  South  America  and  Panama.  In  other  words,  there  are 
about  24,000  Methodists  in  that  new  Regional  Conference.  That 
leaves  it  in  such  shape  that,  according  to  the  representation  that 
is  given  them,  seven  preachers  and  six  laymen  could  elect  bish- 
ops for  that  area — at  the  rate  of  one  for  every  2,000.  I  figured 
hastily,  but  I  think  I  am  right. 

A  Voice :  The  General  Conference  determines  everything  of 
that  sort. 

C.  B.  Spencer:  At  any  rate,  they  are  too  few.  I  have  a  mo- 
tion to  make.  It  is  rather  revolutionary,  and  just  at  the  moment 
I  cannot  defend  it  as  I  would  like.  I  was  going  to  make  a  mo- 
tion that  the  Associate  General  Conference  be  dispensed  with 
in  the  polity  of  the  reorganized  Church.  And  I  would  like  to 
give  one  reason,  which  is  this :  that  the  Associate  General  Con- 
ference is  so  related  to  the  General  Conference  by  the  number 
of  commissioners  that  are  between  the  General  Conference  and 
the  Associate  General  Conference  (ten  if  I  understand  it),  and 
the  powers  of  the  Associate  General  Conference  are  such,  as 
to  really  tend  to  an  independent  Church.  Is  not  that  a  fact?  I 
appeal  to  gentlemen  here  who  are  best  informed  on  this  matter, 
whether  we  shall  put  the  reorganized  Church  into  such  an  atti- 


Louisville  Meeting 


477 


tude  as  that  it  will  promote  and  necessitate  national  Churches. 
Is  the  experience  of  the  Church  in  Japan  of  the  character  which 
would  warrant  us  in  putting  into  the  economy  something  that 
really  is  an  incentive  toward  independency?  Do  we  wish  to 
set  them  aside?  If  the  Associate  General  Conference  will  have 
no  voice  in  the  matters  of  the  reorganized  Church  except  in  those 
things  that  pertain  to  that  General  Conference,  they  are  not  a 
body  connected  with  the  reorganized  Church  as  a  whole.  They 
have  no  voice  in  dictating  its  polity.  They  are  entirely  confined 
to  that  part  of  the  General  Conference  which  relates  to  them- 
selves. They  are  held  into  it  by  the  dividends  from  the  Book 
Concern  and  by  other  interests  that  may  be  of  a  material  char- 
acter. But  they  have  no  organized  relation  with  the  polity  of 
the  reorganized  Church.  They  have  a  voice  only  in  those  things 
that  pertain  to  their  own  interests.  Some  have  likened  that  As- 
sociate General  Conference  to  a  trapdoor.  To  my  thinking  it  is 
like  crowding  them  into  the  vestibule  and  allowing  only  a  cer- 
tain number  of  them  to  come  in,  and  that  only  when  we  are 
considering  what  relates  to  their  own  interests.  Is  not  that  put- 
ting a  premium  on  absolute  independency?  I  do  not  wish  to 
see  projected  into  the  future  a  vast  organization  built  on  that 
principle.  If  we  should  have  independency  in  India,  there  would 
rise  up  in  India  a  Church  which  in  all  likelihood  would  repudiate 
the  deity  of  Jesus.  Do  we  not  want  to  have  an  ecumenical 
Church  which  reaches  out  into  all  parts  of  the  world  and  is  a 
factor  in  all  parts  of  the  world  because  of  its  connectionalism  ? 
There  is  an  absolute  necessity  that  there  shall  be  one  great 
Protestant  force  which  can  stand  up  against  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church.  The  Methodist  Church  is  the  only  Church  that  can 
do  it.  It  is  the  only  connectional  Church  on  the  planet.  As  soon 
as  we  go  on  these  lines  we  begin  to  have  independent  national 
Churches.  Is  that  needed  in  South  America,  for  example? 
What  is  the  fact  in  our  own  land?  I  am  disturbed  when  I  think 
of  the  reception  that  Cardinal  Mercier  had  in  comparison  with 
that  given  the  King  of  Belgium.  Is  it  not  ominous  that  that 
Roman  Catholic  cardinal  should  be  the  hero  of  the  hour,  and 
the  King  of  the  Belgians  be  sidetracked  off  into  the  Grand 
Canyon  or  somewhere  else,  receiving  hardly  any  attention  at  all? 
It  seems  to  me  we  ought  not  to  imbed  into  the  structure  of  the 
future  a  principle  which  would  tend  to  national  Churches,  rather 
than  to  an  ecumenical  Methodism  which  would  encircle  the 
earth. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  I  do  not  understand  that 
Dr.  Spencer's  motion  was  seconded.  Is  the  motion  to  eliminate 
all  reference  to  Associate  General  Conferences  seconded? 

Dr.  Spencer's  motion  was  seconded. 

Bishop  Cranston:  Dr.  Spencer  was  correct  in  calling  that  a 


478     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

revolutionary  motion  at  this  juncture.  However  certain  Dr. 
Jones  may  be  that  the  colored  membership  in  America,  or  some 
foreign  jurisdiction,  may  not  desire  to  act  under  the  privilege 
granted  under  this  item,  it  is  very  possible  that  the  time  may  not 
be  two  decades  ahead  of  us,  if  we  may  judge  by  the  indications 
to-day  throughout  the  world,  when  there  will  be  a  movement 
made  to  place  such  an  article  as  this  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
reorganized  Church,  provided  it  were  now  taken  out.  It  is  not 
safe  to  predicate  the  condition  of  the  world,  and  the  attitude 
of  men  in  general,  white  or  colored,  upon  the  feeling  that  any 
man  may  have  to-day,  generated  largely  by  the  experiences 
through  which  we  have  been  passing  in  the  last  four  years.  I 
would  not  like  to  see  that,  nor  would  I  like  to  see  this  article 
disturbed,  because  I  am  quite  sure  that  the  time  which  may 
come  to  our  colored  brethren  is  already  come  in  our  foreign 
mission  fields.  It  is  one  of  our  difficulties  now  that  we  are  not 
in  shape  to  do  what  ought  to  be  done,  perhaps,  within  a  very 
short  time.  I  am  not  sure  but  that  it  is  overdue.  I  have  never 
placed  great  value  on  our  representation  from  foreign  Mission 
Conferences,  so  far  as  the  improvement  of  the  home  Church  is 
concerned.  I  do  not  think  that  it  has  served  to  bring  our  breth- 
ren from  abroad,  Chinese  and  others,  into  the  presence  of  the 
General  Conference,  to  increase  the  home  interest  in  foreign  mis- 
sion affairs,  and  to  give  foreign  delegates  a  better  knowledge  of 
the  working  of  a  democratic  church  organization  to  carry  back 
to  their  own  people,  with  the  inevitable  result  that  their  people 
would  presently  desire  to  set  up  and  operate  such  government 
for  themselves.  There  is  a  strong  tendency  to  self-government, 
self-determination,  in  China  and  in  India.  I  do  not  speak  with 
confidence  of  the  other  fields.  But  it  is  perfectly  normal  that 
there  should  be  such  a  sentiment.  When  this  was  proposed,  it 
was  my  thought  (and  I  have  never  had  any  other)  that  it  was 
to  serve  to  apprise  our  restless  brethren  in  China  and  elsewhere 
that  the  time  was  in  view,  and  in  the  mind  of  the  Church,  by 
which  their  natural  desires  not  to  follow  in  the  path  of  depend- 
ency would  be  met.  And  if  they  have  now  come  to  that,  and 
already  desire  to  have  autonomy  in  such  degree  as  they  could 
rationally  ask  it  in  view  of  their  present  relation  to  the  American 
Church,  they  need  not  agitate  in  order  to  acquire  that  which  was 
already  being  provided  for.  I  would  not  like  to  see  this  provision 
disturbed  at  all.  I  know  some  of  our  brethren  have  no  sympa- 
thy with  an  ecumenical  Church.  I  have  no  insatiate  ambition 
in  that  direction.  The  whole  question  turns  on  what  is  the 
better  method  of  advancing  the  kingdom  of  Christ  in  these  for- 
eign fields.  If  a  large  measure  of  autonomy  be  essential  to  that 
end,  they  should  have  it.  If  under  the  influence  of  the  gospel 
of  Jesus  Christ  they  have  come  to  the  consciousness  of  an  inde- 


I  ...... 


Louisville  Meeting 


479 


pendent  relationship  to  him  and  to  a  confident  assurance  of  their 
own  ability  to  evangelize  their  own  people,  it  ought  to  be  a 
matter  of  thanksgiving  to  us  and  not  a  matter  of  fear.  Let  us 
have  what  we  need  for  the  realization  of  the  larger  hopes  of  the 
Church  provided  for  in  this  Constitution.  I  trust  we  can  vote 
without  being  thought  of  as  meaning  to  intimate  to  our  Chinese 
friends  that  we  would  like  to  have  them  go  apart,  or  to  our 
people  in  India  that  we  would  like  them  to  segregate  themselves 
into  an  Associate  General  Conference  and  the  sooner  the  better. 
I  do  not  understand  that  to  be  the  thought  at  all,  any  more  than 
I  understand  it  to  be  the  thought  with  regard  to  our  colored 
brethren  in  this  country.  I  submit  that  our  colored  brethren 
have  opened  the  way,  by  a  commendable  act  of  self-sacrifice; 
but  I  do  not  want  them  to  get  it  into  their  thought  that,  in  this 
instrument  which  has  been  for  some  time  under  consideration, 
it  is  proposed  to  crowd  them  into  an  Associate  General  Confer- 
ence. As  long  as  the  compulsory  clause  was  in  it,  it  might  have 
had  that  construction.  It  is  the  colored  and  foreign  jurisdic- 
tions which  are  referred  to  in  that  article.  If  I  were  represent- 
ing our  colored  brethren  in  the  sense  that  our  colored  brethren 
here  are,  I  would  not  wish  to  speak  for  the  wants  of  their  peo- 
ple after  they  shall  have  had  the  advantage  of  ten  or  twenty 
years'  more  experience  in  the  enjoyment  of  larger  opportunities. 

I.  G.  Penn :  I  was  opposed  to  the  Associate  General  Confer- 
ence idea  as  long  as  we  had  in  there  the  "must"  and  the  "shall. " 
I  want  to  say,  to  start  with,  that  if  this  instrument  which  goes 
down  to  the  Annual  Conferences  from  the  General  Conferences 
of  the  two  Churches  carries,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  am  in 
the  reorganized  Church  just  as  long  as  I  can  stay  in  it.  And, 
in  speaking  for  an  Associate  General  Conference,  I  have  not 
in  mind  at  this  moment,  at  all,  that  the  colored  people  will  want 
an  Associate  General  Conference,  or  that  the  colored  people  will 
want  an  independent  relation.  It  ought  to  be  contemplated  by 
us  that  the  people  shall  be  in  the  reorganized  Church,  that  our 
white  people,  both  of  the  North  and  of  the  South,  may  come 
in  contact  with  the  colored  people  and  understand  their  spirit 
and  their  purposes,  and  know  them  better.  I  would  stand  for 
that,  Mr.  Chairman.  For  I  think  that  much  of  the  troubles 
which  obtain  among  us  grow  out  of  a  failure  to  know  each  other. 
So  I  would  like  to  see  them  continue  in  contact  with  our  white 
people,  that  our  white  people  may  know  how  harmless  they  are, 
to  start  with,  and  that  they  might  know  the  white  people  a  little 
bit  better.  I  am  rejoicing,  these  days,  because  of  this  contact  in 
practically  a  clearing  house  between  the  white  people  of  the 
South  and  the  colored  people  of  the  South.  I  am  rejoicing  in 
what  I  see  in  the  New  York  Christian  Advocate  concerning  a 
decision  between  the  white  people  and  colored  people  of  the  city 


480    Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

of  Nashville  in  relation  to  racial  troubles  in  that  city.  I  am  re- 
joicing at  what  I  see  in  the  city  of  Atlanta:  twenty-five  colored 
men  and  the  same  number  of  white  men  meeting  together  every 
Monday  as  a  kind  of  clearing  house  for  the  people  of  Atlanta. 
I  am  informed  that  the  races  in  that  city  are  more  friendly  than 
ever  before.  So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  hope  that  the  colored 
people  will  be  in  the  reorganized  Church  all  their  days.  I  freely 
say  that  I  hope  that  sometime  after  the  colored  people  have  been 
in  the  reorganized  Church,  the  General  Conference  will  so  un- 
derstand them  and  their  spirit  and  how  harmless  they  are  that 
if  there  are  any  decisions  in  regard  to  representation  of  the  col- 
ored people  in  the  General  Conference  of  the  reorganized  Church, 
the  South  as  well  as  the  North  will  be  glad  not  to  have  us  dis- 
placed. But  having  said  that,  to  assure  you  that  I  think  the 
colored  people  ought  to  be  in  the  reorganized  Church,  I  say  that 
the  Associate  General  Conference  is  not  a  bad  idea.  One  of 
the  sad  things  to-day  is  this :  The  colored  people  in  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church  have  done  one  of  the  most  magnificent 
things  in  the  South.  I  sat  in  a  colored  Conference  in  the  South 
under  the  presidency  of  Bishop  Leete  and  saw  that  the  colored 
people  had  raised  $60,000  in  one  Conference,  and  three  times 
as  much  in  another  Conference.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  feel 
that  one  of  the  sad  things  is  that  the  African  Methodists  and 
that  the  A.  M.  E.  Zion  Church  and  the  Colored  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  have  not  the  program  of  a  great  Church,  that  these 
colored  people  may  be  doing  the  very  same  thing  in  their  own 
Churches  that  the  colored  people  are  doing  to-day  in  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church.  And  so  I  say,  somewhat  in  the  future, 
if  these  three  colored  Churches  want  to  become  an  Associate 
General  Conference,  or  if  the  colored  people  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  future  want  to  be  a  kind  of  link  in  a 
closer  association  of  all  the  colored  Methodist  Churches  with 
the  white  Methodist  Churches,  I  think  the  idea  here  involved 
in  the  Associate  General  Conference  may  be  a  good  idea  that 
may  come  to  a  conclusion  that  will  conserve  the  entire  negro 
people  in  relation  to  the  white  people  in  having  one  program  for 
all  that  will  mean  the  moving  together  of  all,  and  getting  the 
largest  possible  results  for  the  kingdom  of  God  upon  the  part  of 
all.  I  think  that  keeping  that  provision  in  this  instrument  is  not 
a  bad  thing.  I  do  not  take  it  as  a  suggestion — I  did,  when  you 
had  "must"  or  "shall"  in  there.  But  I  will  not  take  the  hint. 
I  think  this  ought  to  stay  in  there  in  order  that  we  may  have 
this  thing,  if  in  the  course  of  events  and  in  the  providence  of 
God  in  the  years  to  come  we  may  want  this  great  program  of 
Methodists  everywhere  working  together. 

Bishop  Moore:  The  Committee  on  Regional  Conferences  is 


Louisville  Meeting 


481 


ready  to  report,  and  we  desire  to  have  the  report  considered  to- 
night. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  think  the  case  has  not  been  fully  stated.  If 
the  minds  of  the  brethren  are  made  up,  I  have  no  desire  to  go 
on  with  the  discussion. 

On  motion  by  Bishop  Moore,  the  time  was  extended. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  desire  simply  to  make  a  statement  of  fact. 
My  good  friend  Dr.  Spencer,  and  he  is  my  friend,  has  stated 
that  this  proposition  for  an  Associate  General  Conference  does 
not  appear  in  the  discussion  of  this  Joint  Commission  until  the 
Savannah  meeting.  I  think  he  is  accurate  in  that  statement.  I 
do  not  know  all  that  influenced  this  Commission  in  the  action 
which  took  place  in  Savannah.  I  would  not  be  at  all  surprised 
if  one  of  the  most  effective  factors  in  the  case  was  an  editorial 
which  appeared  in  the  Central  Christian  Advocate  in  December, 
1917,  one  month  before  we  met  at  Savannah,  which  editorial 
advocated  a  proposition  of  this  character. 

Bishop  Denny:  Are  you  certain  about  your  date? 

Edgar  Blake:  The  editorial  bears  the  date  December  26,  1917. 
Now,  concerning  this  matter  (I  mean  the  merits  of  this  propo- 
sition), I  do  not  believe  that  this  proposition  for  an  Associate 
General  Conference  is  in  any  sense  a  "trapdoor"  for  anybody. 
My  judgment  is,  it  affords  an  opportunity  for  any  group  for 
which  the  provision  is  made,  which  may  desire  a  larger  control 
of  its  own  affairs  under  its  own  best  leadership,  to  have  the  op- 
portunity to  realize  its  national  or  its  racial  aspirations  under 
God.  I  cannot  forecast  what  the  attitude  of  the  colored  lead- 
ership and  the  colored  membership  of  our  Church  is  to  be.  But 
I  do  say  this,  that  if  it  exercises  racial  wisdom,  which  has  been 
so  splendidly  manifest  in  its  past,  it  will  avail  itself  of  every 
opportunity  given  it  by  the  Church  of  God  to  come  into  the 
largest  measure  of  free  control  of  its  own  affairs.  No  nation- 
ality, no  race,  gentlemen,  ever  comes  to  its  best  in  the  leading- 
strings  of  another  people.  I  do  not  know  what  the  outcome  will 
be.  I  do  not  prophesy  concerning  that.  My  interest  in  this 
particular  section  does  not  relate  primarily  to  the  colored  mem- 
bership of  our  Church.  My  interest  in  this  section  relates  pri- 
marily to  our  foreign  jurisdictions.  I  call  attention  to  this  very 
illuminating  and  very  significant  fact,  that  in  the  last  twenty-five 
years  the  colored  membership  of  our  Church  has  increased  forty 
per  cent.  The  white  membership  in  the  home  field  has  in- 
creased seventy-two  per  cent.  Our  membership  in  the  foreign 
field  has  increased  two  hundred  and  seventy-eight  per  cent,  and 
is  the  most  rapidly  increasing  constituency  in  our  Church  at  the 
present  time.  I  have  a  letter  here  from  Dr.  Fred  B.  Fisher, 
written  immediately  on  his  return  from  India  after  his  last  visit 
to  that  great  field,  in  which  he  says  that  by  1925,  he  thinks,  our 

31 


482     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

membership  in  India  will  amount  to  1,000,000  communicants. 
My  judgment  is  that  he  is  too  optimistic  in  that.  But  I  desire 
to  call  your  attention  to  this,  that  with  our  Church  spending  $50,- 
000,000  in  the  foreign  field  in  the  next  five  years,  you  can  ex- 
pect an  acceleration  of  progress  in  the  foreign  field,  in  respect 
to  increase  in  our  membership,  such  as  we  have  never  yet  seen. 
It  is  only  a  matter  of  a  short  time  before  Southern  Asia  and 
Eastern  Asia  will  reach  the  400,000  mark.  Do  you  suppose 
Eastern  Asia  and  Southern  Asia  are  always  going  to  be  content 
to  be  ruled  from  America?  I  do  not  think  so.  I  cannot  con- 
ceive of  it.  Do  you  think  that  India,  with  its  increasing  con- 
sciousness of  racial  solidarity  and  its  demand  for  national  inde- 
pendence, when  it  reaches  a  few  over  three-fourths  of  a  million, 
or  a  million  members,  is  going  to  be  content  with  a  maximum 
representation  of  forty  delegates  in  the  General  Conference?  I 
cannot  think  it.  And  when  the  time  comes  that  India  feels  that 
its  representation  in  the  largest  lawmaking  body  of  the  Church 
is  not  commensurate  with  its  numbers  and  its  interest,  I'll  tell 
you  what  will  happen :  There  will  be  a  movement  inaugurated 
in  India  demanding  that  India  be  separated  completely  from  the 
Church  and  become  an  independent  body.  Now,  then,  if  you 
can  make  some  provision  in  your  economy  by  which  these  Re- 
gional groups,  these  foreign  Regional  groups,  shall  be  given  a 
control  over  their  own  affairs  commensurate  with  their  ability  to 
meet  their  responsibilities  in  the  discharge  and  control  of  their 
affairs,  and  then  can  make  provision  in  your  economy  for  the 
increase  of  their  autonomy,  as  their  ability  develops,  you  are  go- 
ing to  do  the  wisest  and  most  statesmanlike  thing  we  can  do 
here,  to  hold  India  ultimately  and  perpetually  as  an  organic  unit 
in  this  reorganized  Church.  I  do  not  know  quite  how  some  of 
you  brethren  feel  to-day.  But  as  I  look  out  upon  this  great 
foreign  field  and  see  what  I  think  is  coming,  and  the  demand 
that  is  certain  to  be  made  upon  us  in  the  near  future  for  a  larger 
control  over  their  own  affairs  in  these  jurisdictions,  I  think  this 
section  which  we  are  now  writing  into  this  Constitution  pro- 
viding for  an  Associate  General  Conference  for  any  jurisdiction 
that  may  desire  it,  when  they  reach  400,000  or  more,  is  one  of 
the  most  statesmanlike  sections  that  we  have  written  in  this 
document.  I  could  say  other  things;  but  I  sincerely  hope  that 
this  Joint  Commission  will  not  seriously  consider  for  a  moment 
the  taking  this  section  from  this  Constitution,  which  I  think  in 
a  very  large  measure  assures  for  all  time  a  world  Church  for  the 
Methodism  of  the  world,  which  we  represent. 

Dr.  Spencer:  In  my  early  years  as  a  journalist  I  took  a  man 
very  sharply  to  task.  I  still  think  he  deserved  it.  But  it  cre- 
ated a  wound  in  that  man  which  he  carried  to  his  grave.  Since 
then  I  have  very  carefully  avoided  that.    I  do  not  think  my  per- 


Louisville  Meeting 


483 


sonal  opinions  have  any  accelerated  value  because  I  hold  them. 
For  that  reason  I  have  not  replied  to  certain  things  within  the 
last  few  months,  some  of  which  might  possibly  have  been  ironed 
out  with  a  red-hot  flatiron.  I  would  not  get  up  here  now  and 
refer  to  that  editorial,  to  which  Brother  Blake  has  referred, 
were  it  not  for  this  fact,  that  I  am  going  to  explain  that  editorial. 
I  have  been  a  pretty  fair  friend  of  the  negro  race.  Booker  T. 
Washington  felt  that.  Professor  DuBois  feels  that.  Plenty  of 
things  are  spoken  by  myself  that  have  a  very  small  value.  But 
my  idea  in  that  was  to  develop  one  of  the  fundamental  theories 
that  have  been  advanced  by  Bishop  Mouzon  in  favor  of  race 
consciousness.  Since  I  have  come  to  see  what  a  Regional  Con- 
ference offers,  not  only  of  race  consciousness,  but  also  to  the 
white  man  and  the  black  man  in  the  relation  of  brotherhood 
that  is  deeper  than  a  mere  name,  I  have  held  a  different  view. 
So  far  as  that  is  concerned,  I  do  not  think  I  hold  any  illusions 
in  regard  to  the  colored  race.  I  have  some  idea  of  what  its  dis- 
abilities are.  I  have  been  in  touch  with  it  for  more  than  twenty 
years  at  close  range.  But  I  hold  this,  that  we  want*  to  realize 
what  is  in  the  windows  of  the  Rust  Library  in  the  great  institu- 
tion in  Washington.  I  had  the  privilege  of  lecturing  on  com- 
parative religion  in  one  of  our  theological  schools  for  a  while. 
There  was  a  negro  there  who  wrote  a  letter  that  fell  under  the 
eye  of  McKinley,  and  he  showed  it  to  a  friend.  They  sent  the 
young  negro  through  Ohio  Wesleyan  University ;  and  he  went 
to  Drew  Seminary.  He  went  into  the  African  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church.  I  asked  him  why  he  did  so ;  and  he  said  that  if 
he  stayed  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  people  would  say 
that  whatever  he  accomplished  was  due  to  the  white  people  who 
held  him  up.  I  told  that  to  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  And  then  I  told  them  what  was 
there  in  Washington — a  white  hand  and  a  black  hand.  We  want 
both  those  hands  together.  I  do  not  want  to  see  those  hands 
pulled  apart.  That  is  my  understanding  of  the  principle  on 
which  we  are  trying  to  build  this  Regional  Conference.  So 
far  as  India  is  concerned,  we  must  be  greatly  concerned  over 
that.  We  know  the  movements  in  favor  of  nationalism  going 
on  there.  It  is  teaching  us  a  very  important  lesson  as  a  Joint 
Commission  on  Unification.  I  have  tried  to  find  what  was  in 
that  indigenous  negroid  race  there  in  Hindustan.  I  have  tried  to 
find  whether  there  is  in  them  a  faculty -that  will  enable  them  to 
compete  with  the  more  favored  Aryan  population  in  India.  I 
am  told  that  to-day  a  representative  of  that  weak  class  has  not 
only  graduated  with  the  greatest  honors  in  the  University  of 
Calcutta,  but  holds  one  of  the  most  responsible  positions  in  the 
Indian  government.  While  I  sympathize  with  the  remarks  here 
of  a  distinguished  bishop  of  the  Church,  South,  we  still  want  to 


484     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

judge  them  by  their  accomplishments;  and  when  they  emerge 
where  they  can  present  as  high  grade  of  thought  as  the  most 
favored  race  has  done,  we  need  to  encourage  them,  in  behalf  of 
the  race  as  a  whole.  So  far  as  India  is  concerned,  the  national 
uprising  going  on  there  will  raise  clashes  as  severe  as  we  have 
seen  in  this  country.  We  must  remember  that  the  city  of  Chi- 
cago is  the  largest  negro  city  in  the  world.  What  I  had  in  mind 
in  my  speech  at  Cleveland  was  national  in  its  scope,  and  what  I 
said  has  proved  true  as  a  forecast  of  events,  in  that  racial  riot 
in  Chicago.  I  hope  that  we  will  build  a  polity  for  the  centuries 
that  are  ahead,  so  that  we  can  propagate  the  highest  principles 
of  human  brotherhood  upon  which  we  and  they  alike  may  ask 
the  blessing  of  Almighty  God. 

F.  M.  Thomas :  I  would  move  as  a  substitute  for  Dr.  Spencer's 
motion  the  following:  that  we  insert  in  the  proper  place  under 
Article  IV. :  "The  privilege  of  becoming  an  Associate  General 
Conference  may  be  extended  to  other  Churches,  through  the  con- 
stitutional process."  My  reason  for  that  is  this :  We  have  a  com- 
mittee on' approach  to  other  communions.  And  it  is  possible 
that  somewhere  in  the  world  there  may  be  a  Church  similar  in 
theology  and  polity  to  ours,  that  will  want  to  become,  after  much 
discussion,  an  Associate  General  Conference;  and  this  would 
provide  a  method  by  which  it  might  be  done. 

This  motion  was  seconded. 

F.  M.  Thomas :  It  would  be  inserted  in  its  proper  place  under 
Article  IV. 

R.  E.  Jones :  I  do  not  want  to  prolong  this  discussion ;  but  I 
want  to  say  a  word.  This  word  ought  to  be  said.  We  all  know 
how  the  idea  of  the  Associate  General  Conference  came  into 
being.  The  remark  has  been  made  here,  I  do  not  know  whether 
I  thoroughly  subscribe  to  it,  talking  about  race  consciousness  and 
race  determination.  The  Church  is  a  voluntary  organization. 
A  man  does  not  need  to  belong  to  it  unless  he  wants  to.  No 
Church  has  the  power  to  confer  on  any  people  self-determina- 
tion unless  they  desire  to  come  into  the  Church.  So  there  is  no 
conference  of  power  to  participate  in  any  voluntary  Church 
organization.  I  want  to  say  this,  which  I  think  is  very  funda- 
mental. It  seems  rather  singular  that  I  should  be  the  man  to 
say  it.  We  have  said  much  about  race  consciousness.  Speaking 
from  the  standpoint  of  a  patriot  (and  a  patriot  I  am),  and 
speaking  from  the  standpoint  of  a  lover  of  peace  and  of  good 
will  among  men  (and  a  lover  of  peace  and  good  will  among  men 
I  am),  I  think  anything  that  is  promotive  of  a  chasm  between 
the  races  does  an  injustice  to  both.  If  I  know  my  section  of 
country,  and  I  think  I  do  in  some  sense,  we  are  making  des- 
perate efforts  to  join  hands  rather  than  to  promote  racial  soli- 
darity.   The  worst  thing  that  could  happen  to  American  life  is 


Louisville  Meeting 


485 


to  make  12,000,000  negroes  solidly  a  race  in  themselves,  and  to 
thrive  upon  race  consciousness  and  race  independency.  I  took 
up  a  paper  last  night  and  was  shocked — a  paper  edited  by  my 
own  people — to  see  there  was  a  call  for  those  people  to  join  in 
with  the  radicals  and  agitators,  saying  that  these  would  welcome 
them,  and  that  the  negro  would  get  freedom  and  liberty  by  join- 
ing in  with  them.  Don't  you  suppose  I  know  and  measure  every 
step  I  take  here?  Don't  you  know  that  I  know  that  the  larger 
part  of  my  people  are  in  Churches  that  are  thriving  in  large 
measure  by  what  you  call  race  consciousness  and  racial  soli- 
darity, and  that  I  have  given  myself  to  opposition  to  all  that? 
God  deliver  us  from  the  day  when  white  men  and  black  men 
shall  be  arrayed  over  against  each  other!  I  do  not  want  any 
suggestion  that  means  that  later  on — do  you  know  that  the  ne- 
gro is  growing  stronger  every  day  in  social  life  and  political  life? 
The  very  fact  that  he  has  moved  north  gives  him  more  political 
power.  The  worst  thing  that  could  ever  happen  is  to  let  these 
people  feel,  even  at  first,  that  you  disassociate  yourselves  from 
them.  May  I  say,  in  all  courtesy  and  in  all  candor,  that  you 
want  to  get  your  hands  as  close  as  you  can  on  that  negro,  and 
bless  him  and  lift  him?  The  atmosphere  of  this  Associate  Gen- 
eral Conference  is  predicated  on  exactly  what  Dr.  Blake  said, 
that  we  ought  to  recognize  race  consciousness  and  self-determi- 
nation. I  have  it  now !  I  can  walk  out  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  to-morrow.  I  resist  that,  in  the  interests  of  peace 
and  good  will  and  the  larger  life  of  my  country.  I  think  all 
that  is  in  there.  I  do  not  want  any  suggestion  that  any  time, 
anywhere,  you  want  to  divorce  yourselves  from  the  negro.  Do 
you  think  we  want  to  stay  in  the  Church  for  the  philanthropy 
of  it?  The  negro  does  not  want  that.  He  wants  not  charity, 
but  a  chance.  He  wants  to  associate  himself  with  the  believers 
in  the  fellowship  of  saints,  that  he  may  grow.  I  felt  I  ought 
to  say  that.  If  I  do  not  misinterpret  the  situation  here,  I  have 
not  seen  in  American  life  anywhere  the  effort  on  the  part  of 
men  to  do  the  very  thing  I  have  tried  to  say  here.  I  have  not 
seen  here,  in  all  my  experiences  in  interracial  affairs,  any  ear- 
nest and  sincere  and  brotherly  effort  to  do  what  I  have  said — that 
is,  that  we  shall  put  our  hands  in  each  other's  hands,  and  trust 
each  other  and  not  be  afraid  of  each  other.  That  is  what  I  want 
to  say  to  my  brothers,  "Don't  be  afraid  of  us."  You  know,  col- 
ored people  are  much  inclined  to  say  that  white  people  hate  us 
and  have  prejudice ;  but  not  all  the  prejudice  and  not  all  the  hate 
are  on  one  side.  It  will  be  exceedingly  bad  if  this  docile,  kind, 
charitable,  tractable  negro  ever  gets  down  into  the  fiber  of  his 
being  the  determination  to  hate  and  be  mean  and  have  revenge. 
It  would  be  the  easiest  thing  in  the  world  to  champion  some  sort 
of  disassociation  from  you  men.    But  I  have  sought,  at  some 


486     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

sacrifice  of  self-respect,  to  insist  that  there  shall  be  fellowship 
and  good  will  and  mutual  helpfulness.  I  believe  that  there  is  a 
platform  and  a  place  where  black  men  and  white  men  can  work 
together  in  mutual  respect  and  love,  without  suspicion  and  with- 
out distrust,  in  holy  fellowship.  I  think  it  is  in  the  interest  of 
both  that  we  do  that  very  thing.  I  am  praying  that  there  shall 
be  no  suggesion  in  this  document  of  disassociation.  I  further 
want  to  say  that  I  suppose  in  constitution-making  we  take  a 
minimum  and  not  a  maximum  of  right.  I  felt  I  ought  to  make 
these  remarks,  however  late  it  may  be,  in  the  interests  of  the 
larger  life  of  our  Church. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  I  seconded  Dr.  Spencer's  motion,  because  I 
have  not  been  able  to  disabuse  my  mind  of  the  thought  that 
this  plan  is  intended  to  be  a  constitution.  I  listened  very  care- 
fully to  Dr.  Blake's  speech,  and  to  Bishop  Cranston's,  concerning 
the  Associate  General  Conference,  because  of  the  possible  effect 
upon  our  mission  fields.  I  think  that  is  far,  far  in  the  distance. 
We  have  about  50,000  members  in  India.  Fisher  is  an  optimist, 
of  course,  when  he  talks  about  a  million  members.  There  is  lit- 
tle difficulty  in  meeting  such  a  situation  as  that  when  it  arises. 
I  cannot  get  over  the  idea  that  it  is  put  in  there,  not  as  a  trap, 
but  as  a  suggestion.  I  can  see  no  reason  for  it  in  this  Constitu- 
tion at  this  time.  I  trust  we  can  see  our  way  to  eliminate  it. 
When  the  time  comes  that  we  have  grown  in  foreign  lands  so 
as  to  want  a  Conference  of  that  sort,  we  can  provide  for  it. 
But  what  is  the  position  of  our  work  in  Europe  and  Africa? 
Imagine  the  time  when  you  could  use  an  Associate  General  Con- 
ference !   I  sincerely  hope  the  whole  section  will  be  taken  out. 

D.  G.  Downey :  Brethren,  we  face  not  a  theory  but  a  condition. 
I  am  not  at  all  enamored  of  the  Associate  General  Conference 
idea.  If  it  were  mandatory,  it  never  could  get  my  consent.  But 
when  I  realize  conditions  as  they  are  in  this  country,  when  I 
realize  certain  interests  of  our  brethren  in  the  Church,  South; 
when  I  realize  that  we  are  preparing  not  an  ideal  constitution 
but  such  a  constitution  and  plan  as  we  hope  will  win  its  way 
through  both  Churches,  and  then  remember  that  there  is  nothing 
mandatory  in  this  Associate  General  Conference,  that  it  leaves 
it  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the  brethren  in  China,  in  India,  in 
the  islands  of  the  sea,  in  our  own  land,  to  say  whether  or  not 
they  want  an  Associate  General  Conference,  then  I  feel  that  in 
view  of  the  practical  difficulties  that  we  face  we  ought  to  accept 
the  Associate  General  Conference — that  is,  if  we  expect  to  adopt 
here  a  plan  that  has  any  chance  of  getting  through. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  think  you  will  remember  that  this  Associate 
General  Conference,  up  to  the  Cleveland  meeting,  was  a  Confer- 
ence which  would  be  organized  of  necessity,  whenever  the  col- 
ored membership  should  reach  a  certain  number.   And  that  idea 


Louisville  Meeting 


487 


was  stricken  out  at  Cleveland.  Instead  of  being  mandatory,  it 
was  made  optional.  It  is  in  this  document,  I  think,  not  simply 
for  the  reasons  which  Bishop  Cranston  and  Dr.  Blake  have 
stated  so  strongly,  but  also  for  another  reason — namely,  that 
should  the  colored  membership  increase  to  400,000  or  a  half 
million,  or  600,000,  or  more,  the  pressure  would  inevitably  come 
for  an  increase  of  representation  of  that  colored  membership  in 
the  General  Conference.  But  I  do  not  think  it  will  come  to 
pass.  But  suppose  there  should  be  an  increase  of  a  large  number 
of  colored  Methodists  in  this  country.  Suppose  they  should 
become  a  million  in  number.  Is  it  not  certain  that  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  there  would  come  a  demand  that  that  five  per 
cent  limitation  should  be  changed,  and  would  we  not  be  faced 
with  a  discussion  in  the  General  Conference  which  would  not 
only  be  unpleasant,  but  might  produce  a  great  deal  of  friction? 
Sc  this  was  put  in  here  to  meet  the  idea,  not  only  for  the  for- 
eign jurisdiction,  but  the  idea  that  if  the  colored  membership 
were  not  satisfied  with  their  representation  in  the  General  Con- 
ference of  five  per  cent,  we  believe  it  would  be  better  for  all 
concerned  for  them  to  have  the  right  to  ask  for  this  Associate 
General  Conference  and  there  have  just  as  many  colored  mem- 
bers as  the  evangelistic  movement  among  them  might  be  able  to 
bring  in;  and  that  they  could  have  their  representation,  their 
tie  with  the  General  Conference,  with  the  twenty  delegates  pro- 
vided for.  I  think  it  would  be  a  great  mistake  to  strike  this  out. 
I  think  -it  should  stay  in  here,  because  it  does  meet  the  possi- 
bility of  a  large  increase  in  colored  membership  without  creating 
the  question  of  either  injustice  to  them  or  increase  of  five  per 
cent. 

A.  J.  Lamar :  I  wish  to  move  that  the  vote  be  now  taken. 
The  previous  question  was  ordered. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  vote  is  on  the  substi- 
tute offered  by  Dr.  Thomas. 

Bishop  Cooke:  Will  Dr.  Thomas  suspend  that? 

F.  M.  Thomas:  What  I  wish  is  simply  this,  that  if  at  any 
time  a  Church  anywhere  in  the  world  desires  simply  to  become 
an  Associate  General  Conference,  then  it  may  become  so  by  the 
constitutional  process. 

Bishop  Cooke :  Will  it  be  subject  to  the  laws  and  rules  and 
regulations  of  the  General  Conference? 

F.  M.  Thomas :  Yes. 

Dr.  Thomas's  substitute  was  put  to  vote,  and  declared  to  pre- 
vail. 

D.  G.  Downey:  Then  the  situation  is,  that  the  Associate  Gen- 
eral Conference  stays  in,  with  this  addition? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  That  is  the  situation. 


♦ 


488     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


Edgar  Blake :  If  there  is  any  question  in  the  mind  of  anybody, 
let  us  do  this  thing  over  again. 

P.  H.  Linn :  I  think  I  understand  exactly  what  we  were  voting 
about,  but  I  raise  the  question  whether  Dr.  Thomas's  motion 
was  a  substitute,  was  germane,  anyway. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  If  it  is  not  a  substitute, 
what  is  it? 

D.  G.  Downey :  It  would  be  most  unfortunate  for  any  one  here 
to  feel  that  a  snap  judgment  was  taken.  I  am  personally  sat- 
isfied with  the  vote.  But  I  did  not  understand  that  it  was  a 
substitute  for  Dr.  Spencer's  motion. 

P.  H.  Linn :  How  could  it  be  an  addition  or  an  amendment 
to  a  motion  to  strike  out  the  whole  section?  There  was  a  mo- 
tion made  to  strike  out  the  whole  section.  The  substitute  was 
that  instead  of  that  there  be  an  addition  to  the  whole  section. 

D.  G.  Downey:  I  think  there  are  a  good  many  brethren  who 
feel  that  they  did  not  understand. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Do  you  give  unanimous 
consent  to  have  a  vote  on  the  motion  by  Dr.  Spencer  that  the 
entire  section  dealing  with  the  Associate  General  Conference 
be  stricken  out? 

The  vote  on  Dr.  Spencer's  motion  was  taken,  and  the  motion 
did  not  prevail. 

D.  G.  Downey:  Now,  if  Dr.  Thomas  wishes  to  present  his 
motion  as  an  addition,  we  ought  to  vote  on  it. 

Dr.  Thomas's  motion  was  presented  again,  put  to  vote,  and 
carried. 

Bishop  Moore :  The  committee  on  territorial  distribution  is 
ready  to  report. 

Dr.  Wallace,  Secretary  of  the  committee,  presented  the  report, 

as  follows : 

We  recommend  that  that  part  of  Tennessee  now  embraced  in  the 
Holston  Conferences  of  the  two  Churches  be  transferred  from  Regional 
Jurisdiction  No.  3  to  Regional  Jurisdiction  No.  2,  so  that  lines  16  and  17, 
page  1.  will  read:  "(2)  Delaware.  Maryland,  District  of  Columbia,  Vir- 
ginia, West  Virginia,  Kentucky,  North  Carolina,  and  that  part  of  Ten- 
nessee now  embraced  in  the  Holston  Conferences  of  the  two  Churches." 

We  recommend  that  Tennessee,  except  that  part  in  Regional  Jurisdic- 
tion No.  2,  remain  in  Regional  Jurisdiction  No.  3. 

We  recommend  that  Article  V.,  Section  2.  subsection  (6),  page  7,  line 
7,  be  amended  by  inserting  after  the  word  "Jurisdiction"  the  words  "in 
the  United  States." 

Bishop  Moore :  We  had  the  various  motions  made  this  morn- 
ing before  us,  and  we  considered  all  the  amendments  that  were 
offered,  and  these  are  the  only  changes  that  we  ask  to  be  made. 

F.  M.  Thomas :  Was  the  suggestion  made  to  exchange  Ken- 
tucky and  South  Carolina? 


t 


Louisville  Meeting 


489 


Bishop  Moore:  It  was.  There  are  some  23,000  members  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Kentucky.  The  brethren  of 
that  Church  would  greatly  prefer  that  Kentucky  be  not  trans- 
ferred into  the  other  section.  They  desire  very  much  that  that 
remain  just  as  it  is.  So,  after  giving  due  consideration  to  that 
motion,  and  also  the  other  motion  to  exchange  Tennessee  and 
North  Carolina,  this  was  the  agreement  on  the  whole  matter — 
just  simply  to  transfer  that  territory  contained  in  the  Holston 
Conferences  from  Region  3  to  Region  2. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  A  practical  difficulty  may  arise.  Would  it  not 
be  best  to  say,  "that  part  of  the  Holston  Conference  lying  in 
Tennessee"? 

Bishop  Moore:  We  would  concede  that.  We  mean  to  write 
the  real  geographical  boundary  line  in  there  as  soon  as  we  find 
out  what  it  is. 

P.  H.  Linn :  That  description  of  territory  here  ought  to  be  in. 

Bishop  Moore:  It  will  be  put  in.  The  two  Conferences  have 
practically  the  same  territory. 

P.  H.  Linn :  It  will  be  expressed  in  geographical  terms,  then, 
and  not  in  terms  of  Conferences? 

Bishop  Moore :  Yes. 

Items  1  and  2  of  the  report  were  adopted. 

J.  J.  Wallace:  Item  3.  We  recommend  that  in  Article  V., 
Section  2,  subsection  (6),  line  7,  page  7,  after  the  word  "Juris- 
diction" there  shall  be  added  the  words  "in  the  United  States"; 
so  that  the  sentence  shall  read  as  follows :  "Nor  shall  it  create 
any  new  Regional  Jurisdiction  in  the  United  States,"  etc. 

Bishop  Moore:  No  change  except  putting  in  the  words  "in 
the  United  States." 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  I  hope  that  the  committee  is  not  objecting  to 
a  chance  to  reduce  the  number.  If  you  were  in  Region  5,  I 
think  you  would  find  some  reason  for  it — I  will  admit  we  have 
only  some  700,000  members.  But  the  countries  are  just  as  dif- 
ferent; the  middle  West  and  the  far  West  are  just  as  different 
as  New  England  and  Florida.  And  there  ought  to  be  a  little 
easier  way  of  separating  that  enormous  district  into  two  Region- 
al Conferences  than  to  get  them  up  to  a  million  members.  I  wish 
the  number  could  be  reduced. 

Bishop  Moore :  This  matter  was  duly  considered,  and  this  was 
the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  committee. 

C.  A.  Pollock :  I  agree  with  Brother  Watt.  I  am  in  the  same 
Region  with  him,  and  yet  I  live  3,000  miles  from  him,  more  or 
less. 

Rolla  V.  Watt :  I  am  going  to  offer  an  amendment  to  substitute 
350,000  for  500,000,  in  subsection  (6),  line  7,  page  7.  The  mat- 
ter is  still  in  the  hands  of  the  General  Conference  at  all  times. 


490     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

That  will  give  us  a  possibility  of  doing  something  that  seems  to 

be  wise. 

Mr.  Watt's  motion  was  seconded. 

Bishop  Moore:  If  the  General  Conference  should  divide  that 
Regional  Conference  and  make  two,  you  would  see  that  that 
membership  of  about  780,000  would  have  200  representatives 
in  the  General  Conference.  We  have  a  minimum  representa- 
tion of  100  in  the  General  Conference  from  each  one  of  the 
Regions.  At  present  that  territory  would  have  a  little  over  too 
delegates.  If  you  make  this  sort  of  a  division,  if  you  adopt  this 
sort  of  a  basis,  you  put  100  men  into  the  General  Conference  for 
the  356,000  members  that  would  be  in  each  one  of  these  Juris- 
dictions. Whereas,  over  in  the  Regional  Jurisdiction  of  some- 
thing over  a  million  members,  you  would  have  only  about  150 
members  in  the  General  Conference.  Not  only  does  it  make 
this  difference,  but  it  disturbs  the  equilibrium  which  now  has 
been  obtained  in  this  present  document. 

D.  G.  Downey:  I  sympathize  with  the  predicament  of  Brothers 
Pollock  and  Watt.  At  the  same  time,  I  do  not  see  how  in  jus- 
tice we  can  change  that  figure.  I  do  see  how  they  can  easily 
bring  it  to  pass  so  that  they  can  have  it  divided.  It  will  only 
take  between  two  and  three  hundred  thousand  to  bring  it  up 
to  the  million.  It  is  a  great  and  growing  section  of  the  country. 
When  I  hear  the  folk  of  that  section  talk,  I  know  they  can  do 
anything  they  want  to.  I  am  perfectly  confident  that  with  the 
aid  of  the  missionary  fund  of  the  Centenary,  under  the  enthu- 
siasm of  that  great  and  growing  country,  and  with  men  of  such 
ability  as  Judge  Pollock  and  Brother  Watt,  they  will  have  a  mil- 
lion members  and  more.  Let  it  stay  as  it  is,  and  let  it  be  an 
incentive  to  these  brethren  to  go  out  and  do  the  immediate  evan- 
gelistic work  that  is  needed. 

Bishop  Cranston :  When  we  were  in  Chattanooga,  where  all 
this  plan  had  its  inception,  it  was  contemplated  that  the  third 
jurisdiction  should  include  all  the  territory  west  of  the  Mississip- 
pi River.  One  of  the  arguments  by  which  that  was  sustained  was 
that  it  would  so  mingle  the  representatives  of  the  two  Churches 
in  the  western  part  of  the  nation  that  the  other  two  Quadrennial 
Conferences,  one  North  and  the  other  South,  would  be  radically 
influenced  for  the  better  by  the  Western  spirit.  I  do  not  know 
that  anybody  undertook  to  contradict  that  view,  or  in  any  way 
to  reduce  its  influence  as  a  factor  in  determining  what  should 
be  the  report  to  the  General  Conference.  In  the  next  place  I 
want  to  say,  and  I  am  anxious  to  get  it  into  the  record,  that  Dr. 
Wallace's  proposition  to  run  that  line  straight  through  to  the 
coast  is  the  better  proposition  of  the  two.  It  is  the  one  perma- 
nent solution  of  the  whole  matter,  so  that  we  will  not  have  that 
far-flung,  long-strung-out  Regional  Territory,  with  traveling  ex- 


Louisville  Meeting 


491 


penses  and  distances  so  great  as  to  require  more  time  than  should 
be  required.  Put  that  line  through  the  west.  Let  us  have  some 
place  where  our  people  and  your  people  shall  be  mingled  to- 
gether from  the  very  start,  and  there  is  no  place  where  you  can 
really  carry  out  that  idea  better  than  in  the  West,  where  things 
are  not  crystallized  so  as  to  be  unchangeable,  and  where  every- 
thing is  growing,  and  toward  which,  after  all,  your  constituency 
from  the  South  seems  to  be  tending.  Do  not  dismiss  that  idea. 
Think  on  it.  Suppose  you  had  500,000  in  one  of  these  territories 
in  that  Regional  Conference.  Would  not  the  same  difficulty 
arise  that  Bishop  Moore  has  just  spoken  of?  It  means  that  you 
would  have  to  wait  until  you  had  the  full  complement  of  mem- 
bership for  both  divisions.  Let  us  put  that  thing  through,  then 
we  will  have  a  better  outcome.  You  will  find  it  very  difficult, 
I  think,  to  put  this  through  as  it  stands  now. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  question  is  on  the 
amendment  offered  by  Brother  Watt,  that  the  figure  500,000  be 
changed  to  350,000. 

The  amendment  was  lost. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  question  recurs  on  the 
report  offered  by  the  committee  that  following  the  words  "Re- 
gional Jurisdiction"  you  insert  the  words  "in  the  United  States." 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  Possibly  the  figure  I  named  is  too  small.  I 
do  not  like  to  feel  that  this  body  is  determined  that  there  shall 
be  no  change  out  there  except  on  a  basis  of  a  million  members. 
One  of  the  brethren  said,  "As  soon  as  we  get  to  using  these  Re- 
gional Conferences,  we  will  want  more  of  them/'  I  would  like 
to  try  another  figure. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  Chair  thinks  he  was 
in  error  in  permitting  the  kind  of  an  amendment  you  offered. 
The  report  of  the  committee  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  number. 
If  you  favor  the  report  offered  by  the  committee  that  after  the 
words  "Regional  Jurisdiction"  you  insert  the  words  "in  the  Unit- 
ed States,"  say  Aye.   If  opposed,  say  No. 

The  item  was  adopted. 

A  motion  to  adjourn  was  made,  but  did  not  prevail. 

Rolla  V.  Watt :  I  want  to  try  once  more  to  see  if  we  can  get  a 
little  relief  for  that  great  Northwestern  section.  You  see  we  are 
at  present  thrown  in  with  Nebraska  and  Minnesota  and  Iowa  and 
Kansas,  to  say  nothing  of  the  Mountain  States,  and  then  clear 
over  to  the  Pacific  Coast.  I  fear  that  there  will  be  an  attempt 
for  a  division  sooner  or  later.  I  therefore  move  the  substitu- 
tion of  400,000  for  500,000. 

P.  H.  Linn :  That  cannot  be  accomplished  for  years,  according 
to  the  statement  of  your  Constitution.  But  that  does  immediately 
create  a  possibility  that  will  frighten  us,  because  it  will  disturb 
the  protection  for  minorities  which  you  have  given  us,  in  return 


492     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

for  which  we  have  made  concessions  to  you  in  order  to  accom- 
plish unification.  The  basis  of  eight  Regional  Conferences,  sev- 
en white  and  one  colored,  will  put  into  the  hands  of  the  present 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  the  power  to  control  constitutional 
matters.    I  shall  vote  against  any  lowering  of  that  number. 

J.  H.  Reynolds :  In  the  first  place,  against  the  suggestion  made 
by  Dr.  Linn,  there  is  ample  protection  in  invoking  the  vote  by 
regions.  I  am  in  favor  of  the  motion  made.  In  the  first  place, 
it  gives  larger  liberty  to  your  General  Conference  in  meeting 
situations  that  may  arise  in  the  development  of  the  Church.  In 
the  second  place,  it  is  perfectly  safe,  because  the  General  Con- 
ference may  refuse.  It  is  within  the  power  of  the  General  Con- 
ference to  determine,  and  gives  your  General  Conference  a  little 
larger  liberty  of  action. 

Bishop  Cooke:  If  I  wanted  to  defeat  this  in  the  Northwest, 
in  Idaho  and  Eastern  Oregon  and  Montana  and  North  Dakota, 
I  would  need  no  better  argument  than  the  map  which  you  have 
provided.  The  people  in  Fargo,  in  Great  Falls,  in  Eastern  Ore- 
gon, in  Helena,  have  wanted  to  know  what  possible  interest  San 
Diego  and  Seattle  can  have  in  their  affairs.  For,  understand, 
the  underlying  motive  of  this  Regional  Conference  business  at 
all  was  that  it  might  have  superivision  over  local  interests.  That 
was  the  main  reason  for  this  Regional  Conference  business  at  all. 
Now,  you  are  spreading  "local  interests"  over  a  vast  territory, 
the  vastness  of  which  you  cannot  comprehend  unless  you  have 
traveled  it.  I  can  put  the  whole  of  New  England  and  all  New 
York  and  all  Pennsylvania  and  New  Jersey  into  the  State  of 
Montana  alone.  It  is  as  large  as  the  whole  Empire  of  Japan. 
And  if  I  wanted  to  ridicule  the  thing  and  defeat  it,  all  I  would 
have  to  do  would  be  to  show  the  extension  of  "local  interests." 

C.  C.  Selecman:  I  come  from  that  vast  and  growing  section 
of  the  country,  and  I  care  to  say  just  two  or  three  sentences.  In 
the  first  place,  if  you  should  undertake  to  erect  a  jurisdiction 
out  there  of  limited  geographical  size,  you  would  find  it  to  be  an 
impossibility,  unless  we  vastly  reduce  the  number  of  members 
in  each  Regional  Jurisdiction.  It  takes  a  lot  of  geography  to 
run  us  out  there !  We  have  one  county  in  California  that  is 
larger  than  the  State  of  Ohio.  While  I  appreciate  the  arguments 
that  have  been  made,  yet,  having  been  a  member  of  this  com- 
mittee, I  realize  that  we  are  creating  more  problems  than  we  are 
eliminating,  by  changing  this  basis.  Therefore  I  am  in  favor 
of  allowing  the  paper  to  stand  as  it  is. 

D.  G.  Downey:  If  the  main  objection  to  division  is  because  of 
the  fact  that  it  will  disturb  the  number  of  delegates  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference — 

Bishop  Moore:  To  be  perfectly  plain,  it  disturbs  the  equi- 
librium we  have  established  in  the  General  Conference,  which  we 


Louisville  Meeting 


493 


desire  to  maintain,  and  that  has  been  a  basis  on  which  a  great 
many  things  have  been  wrought  out. 

D.  G.  Downey :  I  was  wondering  whether  some  exception 
could  be  made  whereby,  at  the  suggestion  of  an  interested  region, 
the  General  Conference  might  provide  that  the  total  number  of 
delegates  from  the  region  that  was  divided  should  not  exceed  the 
number  from  the  original  Regional  Conference  until  the  mem- 
bership in  each  of  these  Regional  Conferences  should  equal  the 
average  per  cent  of  these  white  Regional  Conferences. 

Frank  Neff :  Mr.  Chairman,  I  too  am  a  Roman !  I  do  not 
feel  like  these  brethren  do.  I  would  not  accept  that  at  all,  of 
my  own  choice,  living  in  that  region.  Yet  we  are  not  undertaking 
to  formulate  a  perfect  document  here.  We  are  trying  to  do  the 
best  we  can  under  the  circumstances.  I  do  not  like  the  whole 
arrangement  as  it  is.  But  with  the  adjustment  of  numbers  (2) 
and  (3),  I  think  that  we  had  better  leave  it  as  it  is.  There  is  a 
much  closer  connection — with  all  due  deference  to  Brother  Watt, 
there  is  a  very  close  connection  between  Kansas,  Nebraska,  and 
Iowa  and  the  mountain  and  coast  country.  We  feel  much  closer 
to  the  mountain  country  and  the  coast  than  we  do  to  the  extreme 
East.  And  there  are  thousands  of  our  people  from  those  plains 
States  who  spend  their  summers  in  the  mountains  and  their 
winters  on  the  coast.  Brother  Watt  is  a  member  of  the  Book 
Committee  and  of  this  Unification  Commission.  He  is  one  of 
the  most  loyal  men  on  our  Commission,  and  a  loyal  member  of 
the  Book  Committee.  He  does  ont  complain.  He  comes  all  the 
way  from  San  Francisco  for  all  these  meetings.  And  as  far  as 
I  can  recall,  there  have  been  only  three  General  Conferences 
in  that  Region;  but  those  delegates  come  all  the  way  East.  We 
are  a  growing  country  out  there ;  and  we  feel  that,  giving  us  an 
opportunity  in  that  way  to  build  up,  we  can  draw  the  kingdom 
our  way.  I  say  again,  the  arrangement  is  awkward.  Brother 
Wallace's  suggestion  to  run  the  line  including  Kansas  with  Okla- 
homa and  Texas,  going  along  the  north  line  of  Utah,  and  includ- 
ing California  and  Nevada — you  have  the  same  difficulties  of  dis- 
tance then.  You  have  Portland  and  Seattle  reaching  across  fif- 
teen or  sixteen  hundred  miles  to  Duluth.  I  think  the  wisest 
thing  under  the  circumstances  is  to  let  it  go  and  put  the  incentive 
on  us  to  build  up ;  then  we  can  make  that  division  run  up  and 
down  along  the  Rocky  Mountains,  giving  the  plains  States  and 
those  east  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  the  one  region,  and  the  great 
Pacific  Coast  country  another. 

Bishop  Moore :  In  the  States  of  California,  Oregon,  Wash- 
ington, Montana,  Wyoming,  Nevada,  Colorado,  the  two  Dakotas, 
Utah,  and  Nebraska  there  are  only  230,000  members.  If  you 
draw  a  line  so  as  to  get  400,000  members  in  that  Western  sec- 
tion, you  have  not  changed  your  territory  very  much.    The  big 


494     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

part  of  your  membership  is  clustered  in  the  little  eastern  end, 
and  you  have  not  relieved  the  situation  at  all,  from  the  geograph- 
ical standpoint  and  from  the  standpoint  of  railroad  travel.  So 
it  seems  to  me,  if  you  put  this  at  400,000  you  have  not  got  any- 
where. 

The  amendment  offered  by  Rolla  V.  Watt,  making  the  number 
400,000  instead  of  500,000,  was  put  to  vote,  and  did  not  prevail. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  want  to  call  attention  to  this.  Yesterday  we 
adopted  certain  amendments  on  page  13,  Article  VII.,  lines  11 
to  16,  which  provide  that  the  recommendation  of  three-fourths 
of  all  the  members  of  the  Annual  Conferences  present  and  vot- 
ing shall  suffice  to  authorize  the  next  ensuing  General  Conference 
by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  those  present  and  voting  to  alter  or 
amend  the  provisions  of  this  Constitution,  and  also  when  such 
alteration  or  amendment  shall  have  been  first  recommended  by  a 
General  Conference  by  a  three-fourths  vote,  etc.  What  I  want 
to  call  your  attention  to  is  this:  In  Article  V.,  Section  2,  subsec- 
tion (11),  page  8,  it  says,  "To  consider,  and,  if  deemed  wise,  to 
disapprove  of  the  decisions  of  the  Judicial  Council  upon  any  con- 
stitutional question  and  to  require  its  submission  to  the  members 
of  the  several  Annual  Conferences,  and  the  decision  of  two-thirds 
of  those  present  and  voting  shall  be  final  thereon."  There  ap- 
pears to  be  a  conflict  between  that  section  and  the  amendments 
adopted  yesterday. 

F.  M.  Thomas :  Not  necessarily. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  think  you  will  find  that  we  have  understood 
that  when  the  Judicial  Council  pronounced  an  action  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  not  in  harmony  with  the  Constitution,  and  the 
General  Conference  took  exception  to  that  action,  it  then  became 
a  constitutional  question  and  was  to  be  sent  down  to  the  Annual 
Conferences  to  be  decided  by  constitutional  process.  That  being 
the  case,  both  sections  ought  to  harmonize.  At  least,  I  think 
there  is  sufficient  question  in  this  matter  to  make  it  advisable  to 
refer  these  sections  to  a  committee  for  consideration.  I  move 
that  we  appoint  a  committee  of  four,  two  from  each  Commission, 
to  whom  this  matter  shall  be  referred. 

P.  H.  Linn :  May  I  understand  that  ?  That  simply  is  a  ques- 
tion of  what  is  the  reference  there;  that  is,  what  is  called  for  by 
the  two-thirds  vote?  I  interpret  that  to  mean  that  the  decision 
of  the  General  Conference  to  submit  to  the  Annual  Conferences 
should  be  by  a  two-thirds  vote.  It  is  clumsily  stated.  But  is  it 
not  your  understanding  that  the  purpose  of  the  committee  was 
that  that  is  the  required  vote  within  the  Conference  and  not  within 
the  several  Annual  Conferences? 

Edgar  Blake :  No.  My  understanding  is  that  that  has  to  do 
with  the  vote  in  the  several  Annual  Conferences.  I  think  the 
whole  section  needs  to  be  revised  and  cleared  up.    The  thing  as 


Louisville  Meeting 


495 


it  now  stands  is  not  clear.  It  ought  to  be  made  perfectly  clear 
so  that  there  could  be  no  question.  That  is  why  I  think  it  ought 
to  go  to  a  committee. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  It  seems  to  me  there  is  a  vast  difference  be- 
tween declaring  how  the  Constitution  shall  be  changed  and  de- 
claring what  the  Constitution  now  is.  They  do  not  need  to  be 
done  by  the  same  process.  There  is  no  need  of  requiring  three- 
fourths  to  tell  what  the  Constitution  now  is.  Two-thirds  ought 
to  be  sufficient  for  that  purpose.  Then  the  Constitution  stands 
as  it  has  been. 

Bishop  Moore :  I  favor  the  appointment  of  this  committee. 
The  committee  was  ordered. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  How  will  you  appoint  it? 
Edgar  Blake :  I  think  we  have  a  method  of  appointing  commit- 
tees. 

E.  B.  Chappell :  I  move  that  we  ask  the  Chairman  of  the  two 
Commissions  to  appoint  from  their  respective  Commissions. 

D.  G.  Downey :  Have  we  voted  on  that  matter  of  the  Regional 
Conferences,  or  is  that  to  be  held  until  our  next  meeting? 

Bishop  Moore :  I  think  perhaps  there  was  no  vote  to  adopt  that 
section  referring  to  Regional  Conferences,  as  a  whole. 

Bishop  Denny:  Do  I  understand  that  this  motion  just  made 
proposes  to  take  in  from  "Members,"  on  page  2,  down  through 
page  4  to  "Associate  General  Conferences"  ? 

Bishop  Moore :  No ;  simply  as  on  the  first  page,  with  reference 
to  the  distribution  of  the  membership  in  the  white  Conferences. 

The  report  of  the  Committee  on  Regional  Conference  Bounda- 
ries was,  on  motion,  adopted  as  a  whole. 

The  special  committee  of  four  referred  to  above  was  consti- 
tuted as  follows :  From  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  J.  J. 
Wallace,  C.  A.  Pollock;  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  Bishop  Mouzon  and  A.  J.  Lamar. 

On  motion  of  Dr.  Lamar,  it  was  voted  to  adjourn. 

J.  R.  Pepper  offered  prayer. 

The  session  closed  at  6 120  p.m. 

FIFTH  DAY,  TUESDAY,  JANUARY  20,  1920. 

Morning  Session. 

A  hymn  was  sung,  and  J.  R.  Pepper  offered  prayer. 
Bishop  Moore  read  Psalm  ciii. 

The  hymn,  "I  will  sing  the  wondrous  story,"  was  sung. 

Secretary  Thomas  read  the  minutes  of  Monday  afternoon's 
session,  which  were  approved  as  read. 

The  roll  was  called  and  the  following  were  present:  Bishops 
E.  D.  Mouzon,  Collins  Denny,  J.  M.  Moore,  James  Cannon,  Jr., 
Earl  Cranston,  F.  D.  Leete,  R.  J.  Cooke.    Ministers:  F.  M. 


496     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


Thomas,  W.  J.  Young,  C.  M.  Bishop,  E.  B.  Chappell,  T.  N. 
Ivey,  A.  J.  Lamar,  P.  H.  Linn,  C.  C.  Selecman,  J.  E.  Dickey, 
Edgar  Blake,  D.  G.  Downey,  R.  E.  Jones,  A.  J.  Nast,  Frank 
Neff,  J.  W.  Van  Cleve,  J.  J.  Wallace,  C.  M.  Stuart.  Laymen : 
H.  N.  Snyder,  P.  D.  Maddin,  R.  S.  Hyer,  J.  H.  Reynolds,  R.  E. 
Blackwell,  T.  D.  Samford,  J.  R.  Pepper,  J.  G.  McGowan,  G.  W. 
Brown,  A.  W.  Harris,  J.  R.  Joy,  C.  W.  Kinne,  I.  G.  Penn,  C.  A. 
Pollock,  Rolla  V.  Watt,  E.  L.  Kidney. 

P.  H.  Linn :  I  move  that  the  Committee  on  Boundaries  be  in- 
structed to  describe  that  change  of  the  Regional  Conferences  in 
geographical  terms,  covering  the  territory  declared  in  terms  of 
Conferences  of  the  divided  Church. 

J.  E.  Dickey:  We  do  not  describe  the  bounds  of  any  Confer- 
ence in  these  regions.  When  we  put  Tennessee  into  this  region, 
we  do  not  bound  Tennessee.  We  do  not  bound  the  Holston  Con- 
ference. We  do  not  bound  these  Conferences  in  placing  them 
in  the  region.  Why  is  it  necessary  to  bound  them  when  we  take 
them  out? 

P.  H.  Linn :  The  rest  of  the  document  is  not  in  terms  of  Con- 
ferences at  all,  but  in  terms  of  States.  It  is  all  geographical 
except  this  one  reference. 

F.  M.  Thomas :  That  is  a  good  point. 

Edgar  Blake :  We  are  stating  this  in  terms  of  geography.  We 
take  that  part  of  the  State  of  Tennessee  embraced  in  the  Holston 
Conferences  of  the  two  Churches.  The  minute  you  attempt  to 
state  in  your  Constitution  the  boundaries  as  they  are  stated  here 
in  that  Discipline,  you  are  going  to  have  a  very  unhappy  mess. 
We  always  will  have  the  record.  If  you  write  in  the  Constitu- 
tion, "That  part  of  the  State  of  Tennessee  embraced  in  the  Hol- 
ston Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  as  they  are  now  constituted," 
that  covers  the  case  and  is  perfectly  clear.  If  you  write  in  your 
Constitution  the  names  of  counties,  and  "up  the  river  line  to 
Kentucky  and  down  the  river  line  to  Georgia,"  etc.,  nobody  will 
know  what  territory  you  refer  to.  But  if  you  write,  "That  part 
of  the  State  of  Tennessee  embraced  in  the  Holston  Conferences 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,"  everybody  knows  instanter,  when  they  read  it, 
just  exactly  what  you  mean. 

C.  M.  Bishop:  This  Constitution  will  probably  last  for  a  good 
many  years,  if  it  ever  becomes  a  Constitution.  Twenty-five  years 
from  now  what  will  "boundaries  of  the  Holston  Conferences  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,"  mean?  We  understand  now,  and  it  will  be 
understood  at  the  General  Conference;  but  if  the  Constitution  is 
adopted  as  we  present  it,  if  we  do  present  it,  these  particular 
regional  lines  will  be  described  in  terms  which  will  be  constantly 


Louisville  Meeting 


497 


getting  older  and  dimmer  in  the  minds  of  men,  and  you  will 
have  to  go  back  to  the  Discipline  of  long  ago  to  find  what  they 
mean. 

Edgar  Blake:  What  is  the  status  of  the  case? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  A  motion  made  by  Dr.  Linn 
that  this  committee  describe  the  lines  in  the  terms  of  geography. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  move  that  Dr.  Linn  and  Bishop  Cooke  be  made 
a  committee  to  formulate  the  statement. 

Bishop  Denny :  The  lines  of  the  Holston  Conference  are  de- 
termined by  the  geography  of  the  country,  particularly  in  the 
southern  end  of  it.  It  has  not  been  found  possible  for  us  to 
give  service  to  certain  portions  of  that  country  outside  of  our 
present  Holston  lines.  These  valleys  are  of  such  a  nature  that 
there  is  no  passageway  over  the  mountains.  The  result  is  that 
we  have  in  Alabama,  as  well  as  in  Georgia,  certain  work  that  we 
have  never  been  able  to  serve  except  from  the  Holston  Confer- 
ence. If  you  make  a  geographical  line,  not  only  will  it  be  open 
to  the  objection  of  which  Dr.  Bishop  spoke — 

P.  H.  Linn :  May  I  ask  Bishop  Denny  a  question  ?  I  have  no 
intention  of  changing  the  content  of  the  thing  at  all.  I  simply 
want  to  state  in  terms  of  geography.  Certainly  that  can  be  done, 
for  both  are  stated  in  terms  of  geography  now. 

Bishop  Denny :  But  we  are  cutting  State  lines.  The  time  may 
come  when,  by  tunneling  those  mountains,  all  that  may  be  reme- 
died. And  if  you  lay  down  the  geographical  line  now,  which 
accommodates  the  present  condition  of  things,  it  may  be  unnec- 
essary after  a  few  years.  And  you  will  make  it  necessary,  in- 
stead of  having  the  proper  authority  in  Regional  Conference  or 
General  Conference  to  adjust  the  difficulties,  to  have  a  constitu- 
tional change  to  adjust  them.  If  some  general  terms  could  be 
used,  it  would  still  leave  the  proper  authority  to  delimit  the 
Conference  lines  under  changed  conditions,  and  thus  save  a 
great  deal  of  difficulty.  It  would  be  dangerous  to  put  in  geo- 
graphical lines. 

Bishop  Cooke :  There  is  really  no  difference  here.  We  are  all 
agreed  upon  the  thing.  The  only  difference  at  all  is  whether 
we  shall  put  a  long  string  of  county  names  and  river  names  and 
mountain  lines,  or  shall  express  the  same  thing  in  two  or  three 
words,  all  of  which  have  their  meaning  in  the  Disciplines  of  both 
Churches  as  at  present  constituted.  If  Dr.  Linn  feels  that  there 
is  anything  else,  I  do  not  care  anything  about  it,  so  long  as  we 
get  the  thing  we  want.  You  can  describe  it  any  way  you  want  to. 
I  move  that  Dr.  Linn's  motion  prevail. 

Bishop  Cannon :  There  is  a  motion  to  appoint  a  committee. 

Bishop  Moore :  The  motion  is  that  these  terms  be  written  in 
terms  of  geography;  and  then  there  is  an  amendment  that  a  com- 
mittee be  composed  of  Dr.  Linn  and  Bishop  Cooke. 
32 


498     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

This  latter  motion  was  withdrawn,  and  Dr.  Linn's  motion  v/as 
adopted. 

Bishop  Cranston  took  the  chair. 

Bishop  Cooke :  Dr.  Spencer  wrote  me  a  note  last  night,  saying 
that  he  was  compelled  to  leave  the  city,  and  would  leave  his 
proxy  with  Bishop  Leete. 

Bishop  Denny :  If  I  could  be  given  a  little  information,  it  would 
help  me  very  much.  Has  any  hour  for  final  adjournment  been 
fixed? 

A.  J.  Nast :  I  am  compelled  to  leave  this  afternoon  at  4:25, 
and  should  be  very  glad  if  the  time  of  adjournment  could  be 
fixed. 

Bishop  Cannon :  Would  it  not  be  wiser  to  decide  that  at  12  130? 
It  seems  to  me  it  would  be  a  mistake  to  fix  the  time  of  adjourn- 
ment arbitrarily  now  when  we  do  not  know  what  time  discus- 
sion of  reports  of  committees  will  consume. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  think  we  would  all  like  to  adjourn  as  quickly 
as  possible;  but  I  think  no  one  of  us  wants  to  adjourn  until  our 
work  is  fully  completed.  It  seems  to  me  that  with  the  work  in 
such  shape  as  it  is,  if  we  can  go  along  without  unnecessary 
debate,  we  can  get  through  in  a  reasonable  time.  We  could  delay 
fixing  the  time  of  adjournment  until  the  close  of  the  morning 
session,  when  we  would  probably  be  in  a  position  to  determine 
more  accurately  at  what  time  we  ought  to  adjourn.  I  move  that 
speeches  be  limited  hereafter  to  three  minutes. 

C.  M.  Bishop :  I  propose  instead  of  that  that  we  continue  in 
session,  if  necessary,  until  3.15  p.m.,  with  the  understanding 
that  final  adjournment  shall  be  at  that  time. 

Rolla  V.  Watt :  I  do  not  believe  there  is  any  way  of  adjourn- 
ing at  3  115  except  by  simply  accepting  the  report  of  a  committee 
and  not  trying  to  make  any  changes  in  it.  I  am  not  satisfied 
with  that,  and  will  never  vote  for  it.  I  have  come  a  longer  dis- 
tance than  any  man  here,  and  am  willing  to  stay  through.  There 
are  several  amendments  that  ought  to  be  made,  and  that  will 
hold  up  the  time  of  adjournment.  I  hope  that  nothing  will  be 
done  now  with  reference  to  adjournment,  but  we  will  proceed 
with  the  business  of  the  day. 

G.  W.  Brown :  I  am  absolutely  opposed  to  fixing  any  particular 
hour  for  adjournment  to-day.  This  matter  of  the  hour  when 
we  will  adjourn  can  very  well  be  deferred. 

P.  H.  Linn :  I  move  to  amend  Dr.  Blake's  motion  to  limit 
speeches  to  three  minutes  by  substituting  "five"  for  "three." 

This  amendment  prevailed. 

F.  M.  Thomas:  May  I  rise  to  a  question  of  personal  privilege? 
I  am  sure  the  men  who  have  known  me  for  some  time  know  that 
in  my  remarks  yesterday  I  intended  no  reflection  in  any  wise 
upon  any  one  in  the  Commission.    I  am  satisfied  that  they  have 


Louisville  Meeting 


499 


done  all  that  men  can  do.  But  there  is  one  man  in  the  Commis- 
sion of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  that  I  want  to  reflect 
on  very  severely !  He  made  a  false  statement  yesterday !  He 
said  I  did  not  love  him !  I  refer  to  Bishop  Cranston.  He  and  I 
have  been  together  thirteen  years. 

P.  H.  Linn:  In  line  I,  on  page  12,  the  expression  "Judicial 
Conferences"  has  no  meaning  to  my  mind.  What  is  the  fact  in 
the  case?   I  do  not  recognize  the  term  at  all. 

Edgar  Blake :  As  an  amendment  to  that  section,  I  would  move 
that,  beginning  with  line  28,  on  page  11,  we  strike  out  the  words 
"the  records  and  documents  transmitted  to  it  from  Judicial  Con- 
ferences." Also  strike  out  in  line  2,  page  12,  the  words,  "ques- 
tions of  law  and,"  so  that  it  will  read :  "The  Judicial  Council 
shall  have  full  power  to  review,  upon  appeal  on  constitutional 
grounds,  the  acts  of  the  General  Conference,  the  Associate  Gen- 
eral Conferences,  and  the  Regional  Conferences,  to  hear  and  de- 
termine all  other  appeals  coming  to  it  in  course  of  lawful  pro- 
cedure." 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Brother  Linn's  embarrass- 
ment is  no  greater  than  that  of  the  brother  who  was  elected  a 
bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  asked  that  same 
question,  "What  is  the  Judicial  Conference"? 

Bishop  Cooke :  WThat  is  the  reason  for  eliminating  the  words 
"records  and  documents  transmitted  to  it  from  Judicial  Confer- 
ences"? 

Edgar  Blake :  Because  that  is  covered  otherwise. 

Bishop  Cooke  :  I  beg  pardon.  A  record  and  a  document  are  not 
an  appeal.  You  are  doing  an  injurious  thing.  You  are  elimi- 
nating documents  and  eliminating  records. 

Edgar  Blake :  Is  there  any  reason  why  a  Judicial  Conference 
should  transfer  these  things? 

Bishop  Cooke:  You  have  Conference  records  and  journals 
which  ought  to  be  referred  to  Judicial  Conferences. 

Edgar  Blake :  There  is  no  danger  at  all.  We  are  talking  about 
the  powers  of  the  Judicial  Council. 

Bishop  Cooke:  But  if  it  has  no  power  to  examine  the  docu- 
ments that  may  be  transmitted  to  it,  what  then?  You  know  that 
there  are  numbers  of  cases  which  have  to  be  opened  on  account 
of  new  evidence. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  The  amendment  as  suggested  by  Dr.  Blake 
seems  to  me  to  cover  this  case  perfectly,  because  any  case  com- 
ing in  regular  process  of  law  will  naturally  bring  its  records  and 
documents  with  it,  if  there  are  any.  The  records  and  documents 
have  no  business  coming  there,  unless  they  come  in  process  of 
law.  They  ought  to  stay  where  the  legal  process  is  officially 
taken. 

Edgar  Blake :  Bishop  Cooke,  if  we  substitute  for  the  word 


500     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


"appeal"  the  word  "matters, "  so  that  it  will  read,  "The  Judicial 
Council  shall  have  full  power  to  review,  upon  appeal  on  constitu- 
tional grounds,  the  acts  of  the  General  Conference,  the  Associate 
General  Conferences,  and  the  Regional  Conferences,  and  to  hear 
and  determine  all  other  matters  coming  to  it  in  course  of  lawful 
procedure,"  will  that  be  satisfactory? 

P.  H.  Linn :  Let  me  suggest  that,  instead  of  substituting,  we 
add  "and  matters." 

Edgar  Blake :  I  accept  that  suggestion. 

Bishop  Denny :  An  appeal  is  based  on  a  record,  and  the  appeal 
cannot  be  intelligently  entertained  unless  the  appellate  body  has 
the  power  to  call  for  the  record.  Is  this  Judicial  Council  confined 
in  its  survey  of  facts  to  the  record  that  is  brought  before  them? 
It  does  not  go  outside  the  record  transmitted  from  the  Confer- 
ence or  committee  below  it.  That  is  one  question  that  ought  to 
be  settled.  Do  we  propose  to  have  the  case  de  novo,  or  is  it 
really  appellate?  If  it  be  appellate,  something  ought  to  be  said 
to  indicate  that  the  Judicial  Council  shall  confine  itself  to  the 
records  and  documents  that  come  up,  on  the  basis  of  which  the 
appeal  is  made.   It  is  only  a  question  of  what  the  intention  is. 

Bishop  Cooke :  Who  will  pass  upon  the  legality  of  the  acts 
of  the  Annual  Conference  from  which  any  appeals  may  be  made, 
which  acts  have  not  been  challenged  in  the  Annual  Conference? 
Acts  have  been  done  in  the  Annual  Conference  which  may  be 
contrary  to  the  law  of  the  Church,  and  passed  over.  But  they 
become  actual  precedents  in  the  acts  of  the  future  Annual  Con- 
ferences. That  is,  these  Conference  records  go  through  scrutiny. 
They  are  passed  upon.    This  eliminates  all  such  as  that. 

D.  G.  Downey :  We  have  a  motion  before  us.  I  move  to 
amend  by  simply  striking  out  in  line  I,  page  12,  the  words 
"from  Judicial  Conferences,"  and  in  line  2  the  words  "questions 
of  law  and,"  so  that  it  shall  read,  "The  Judicial  Council  shall 
have  full  power  to  review,  upon  appeal  on  constitutional  grounds, 
the  acts  of  the  General  Conference,  the  Associate  General  Con- 
ferences, and  the  Regional  Conferences,  the  records  and  docu- 
ments transmitted  to  it,  and  to  hear  and  determine  all  other  ap- 
peals and  matters  coming  to  it  in  course  of  lawful  procedure," 
etc. 

C.  A.  Pollock:  I  think  the  point  raised  by  Bishop  Denny 
should  be  considered  just  a  moment.  May  I  suggest  that  the 
first  two  lines  of  the  paragraph,  lines  26  and  27,  page  11,  would 
seem  to  imply  that  the  Judicial  Council  should  only  have  the 
power  to  review  matters  which  are  brought  before  the  lower 
body,  which  would  apparently  exclude  the  possibility  of  bringing 
in  new  evidence? 

T.  D.  Samford:  I  suggest  that  Dr.  Downey  use  some  word 
which  would  indicate  that  the  Judicial  Council  shall  have  power 


Louisville  Meeting  501 

to  call  for  necessary  documents.  All  judicial  tribunals  have  that 
power. 

D.  G.  Downey:  If  we  adopt  this  amendment,  we  can  put  that 
in  later. 

Dr.  Downey's  amendment  was  read  again. 

F.  M.  Thomas :  I  would  like  to  ask  one  question  there.  It 
strikes  me  that  there  ought  to  be  some  method  or  process  by 
which  the  case  to  which  attention  was  called  by  Bishop  Cooke 
might  be  covered.  For  instance,  an  Annual  Conference  might 
violate  the  law  of  the  Church,  and  no  appeal  be  taken.  Some 
man  might  think  that  the  law  had  been  violated,  and  simply 
transmit  the  record  to  the  Judicial  Council  to  be  passed  on.  It 
seems  to  me  that  would  not  be  sufficient. 

D.  G.  Downey :  I  would  add,  "provided  that  no  appeal  from 
any  Conference  shall  be  entertained  unless  the  same  has  been 
taken  by  at  least  one-fifth  of  the  Conference." 

Dr.  Downey's  amendment  was  adopted. 

The  question  was  asked  whether  the  words  "provided  that  no 
appeal  from  any  Conference  shall  be  entertained  unless  the  same 
has  been  taken  by  at  least  one-fifth  of  the  Conference"  refer  to 
appeals  taken  from  the  action  of  the  Conference  or  to  appeals 
taken  by  the  Conference. 

R.  E.  Blackwell :  It  means  an  appeal  coming  from  the  Con- 
ference. 

Edgar  Blake:  Does  it  mean  an  appeal  initiated  by  a  Confer- 
ence? 

Bishop  Moore :  I  do  not  know  wThat  it  means. 
Edgar  Blake :  Neither  do  I. 

Bishop  Cooke :  I  do  not  think  that,  the  way  it  now  reads,  any 
one  can  prove  from  this  statement  that  the  appeal  from  an  An- 
nual Conference  will  be  entertained.  I  do  not  believe  that  you 
can  prove  that  any  Annual  Conference  would  have  the  right  to 
send  an  appeal  to  the  Judicial  Council,  the  way  it  now  reads. 
Since  you  have  a  number  of  Conferences  mentioned,  does  not 
the  word  "Conference"  include  any  of  those  Conferences? 

Bishop  Denny :  This  statement  would  probably  better  come 
from  some  lawyer  than  from  me.  But  it  is  a  matter  of  com- 
mon sense,  since  common  law  is  common  sense,  that  the  speci- 
fication of  the  Conferences  from  which  appeals  can  be  taken 
is  an  exclusion  of  any  other  Conference  from  which  any  appeal 
can  be  taken.  This  would  prevent  a  review  by  the  Judicial 
Council  of  anything  done  in  an  Annual  Conference.  You  could 
cover  this,  if  it  is  the  desire  of  the  Commission  to  cover  it,  by 
striking  out  the  word  "and"  in  line  28,  page  11,  and  after  "Re- 
gional Conferences"  saying  "and  Annual  Conferences." 

A  motion  to  this  effect  was  made  and  seconded. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  I  wonder  if  we  are  not  in  danger  of  trying 


502     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

to  write  into  the  Constitution  what  ought  to  go  into  the  ordinary 
legislation  of  the  Church.  We  could  get  back  at  last  even  to 
the  Quarterly  Conference,  or  the  Church  Conference,  possibly. 
From  that  point  onward  any  matter  might  proceed  in  regular 
order  if  we  were  defining  our  legal  procedure  as  we  shall  later 
on  when  we  get  together.  But  to  define  it  all  in  the  Constitution 
seems  to  me  carrying  it  too  far.  If  we  say,  "All  other  appeals 
and  questions  of  law  coming  to  it  in  the  course  of  lawful  pro- 
cedure," then  after  this  Constitution  has  been  adopted  we  may 
define  lawful  procedure. 

Bishop  Denny :  Would  it  not  be  possible  under  law  that  the 
moment  you  set  forth  a  series  of  Conferences  from  which  ap- 
peals can  be  taken,  by  that  very  act  you  bar  every  other  Confer- 
ence from  taking  an  appeal?  Brother  Maddin,  Brother  Sam- 
ford,  Brother  Pollock,  you  lawyers  make  a  statement  of  the  facts 
in  that  case. 

Bishop  Moore :  We  have  had  considerable  trouble  over  this 
statement  of  the  powers  of  the  Judicial  Council.  I  would  be 
very  happy  indeed  if  we  would  refer  Section  6,  subsections  (i) 
and  (2),  on  "Powers,"  to  a  special  committee  of  four  or  six 
men,  and  let  them  rewrite  that  and  bring  it  back  to  us  at  the 
afternoon  session.  I  move  that  this  section  on  "Powers,"  Sec- 
tion 6,  be  referred  to  a  committee  of  six. 

This  committee  was  ordered. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  move  that  the  following  amendment  to  Sec- 
tion 3,  at  the  top  of  page  11,  line  6,  be  made:  Insert  "except 
that  one-half  the  members  of  the  first  Judicial  Council  shall  be 
elected  for  four  years,  and  their  successors  thereafter  for  eight 
years,"  so  that  it  will  read:  "Section  3.  Members  of  the  Judicial 
Council  shall  serve  for  eight  years,  or  until  their  successors  are 
confirmed,  and  shall  be  eligible  for  reelection.  The  term  of  each 
member  (except  as  provided  in  Section  9)  shall  expire  at  the 
close  of  the  second  General  Conference  succeeding  that  at  which 
his  term  began;  except  that  one-half  the  members  of  the  first 
Judicial  Council  shall  be  elected  for  four  years,  and  their  suc- 
cessors thereafter  for  eight  years." 

Bishop  Denny :  You  had  better  say  seven  of  them. 

Edgar  Blake :  That  is  true.  I  move  that  this  amendment  be 
referred  to  this  committee. 

It  was  so  referred. 

A.  J.  Nast:  You  remember  that  yesterday,  in  discussing  sub- 
section (c),  on  page  6,  I  desired  to  introduce  a  resolution  and 
was  informed  by  Dr.  Blake  that  you  could  reconsider  your  ac- 
tion later,  if  necessary.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  will  be  neces- 
sary to  reconsider  it.  What  I  wish  to  offer  now  is  to  call  your 
attention  to  Article  III.,  page  2,  "C.  Membership  in  Foreign 
Countries."    I  understand  we  have  not  finished  all  the  matter 


Louisville  Meeting 


503 


pertaining  to  Regional  Conference  membership;  and  I  wish  to 
offer  this  resolution  in  lieu  of  under  C,  lines  7  to  14,  subsections 
(8),  (9),  (10),  (11) — in  place  of  all  that,  this  resolution:  "The 
number,  classification,  and  geographical  boundaries  of  Regional 
Conferences  in  foreign  countries  shall  be  determined  by  the 
General  Conference." 
This  was  seconded. 

A.  J.  Nast:  I  think  it  is  obvious  to  every  one  of  us,  if  you 
will  study  the  boundaries  as  given  in  these  four  subsections, 
that  while  some  of  them  may  be  perfectly  satisfactory,  some  of 
them  are  not  quite  so. 

P.  H.  Linn:  Why  do  you  use  the  word  "classification"? 

A.  J.  Nast :  Because  we  must  classify  these  Regional  Confer- 
ences, not  only  in  view  of  their  geographical  position,  but  also  in 
view  of  conditions  of  nationality,  political  considerations,  etc. 
I  will  give  a  concrete  case  in  subsection  (9)  :  "The  Annual  Con- 
ferences, Mission  Conferences,  and  Missions  in  Europe,  the  Ma- 
deira Islands,  and  in  Africa."  Here  you  have  put  into  one  Re- 
gional Conference  two  whole  continents  as  diverse  as  they  possi- 
bly can  be.  The  "dark  continent"  of  Africa,  and  that  enlight- 
ened, though  sadly  disturbed,  continent  of  Europe,  are  in  the 
one  Regional  Conference.  Could  you  imagine  anything  more 
diverse  in  character  than  those  two? 

P.  H.  Linn :  Why  would  not  that  be  accomplished  under  the 
matter  of  division?  I  do  not  understand  the  idea  that  is  con- 
tained in  your  word  "classification."    There  is  no  classification. 

A.  J.  Nast :  I  will  yield  that  word.  Brethren,  we  are  not  in  a 
condition  now  intelligently  to  fix  the  boundaries  of  those  two 
continents.  Especially  in  regard  to  Europe,  so  distracted  and 
so  divided  politically,  linguistically,  nationally,  and  socially,  and 
in  every  possible  way.  And  then,  in  our  own  Church  we  expect 
very  shortly  to  receive  the  report  of  the  special  deputation  that 
has  been  sent  to  investigate  the  condition  of  our  work  in  the 
lands  of  the  former  "Central  Powers,"  including  Switzerland. 
My  motion  is  that  instead  of  now  attempting  to  define  the  bound- 
aries of  subsection  (9),  we  refer  that  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence in  these  words :  "The  number  and  geographical  boundaries 
of  the  Regional  Conferences  in  foreign  countries  shall  be  deter- 
mined by  the  General  Conference."   That  includes  all  of  them. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  Does  that  conflict  with 
the  provision  by  which  you  say  there  shall  be  Regional  Confer- 
ences in  Eastern  Asia,  etc.?  This  says,  "the  number"  of  Re- 
gional Conferences.  But  you  have  fixed  the  number  by  those 
you  have  indicated  already. 

P.  H.  Linn :  That  is  what  I  want  to  do  away  with.  I  think 
his  idea  is  to  allow  some  liberty  in  changing  boundaries  in  for- 
eign countries  according  to  development.    We  do  not  want  to 


504     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


require  a  constitutional  change  in  order  to  accomplish  a  read- 
justment of  Regional  Conference  boundaries  in  foreign  lands. 
The  motion  prevailed. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  If  it  is  not  too  late,  attention  should  be  called 
to  the  fact  that  that  may  upset  the  voting  strength  allowed  by 
your  General  Conference.  It  is  stated  on  page  6,  subsection 
(c),  line  10,  "of  not  less  than  ten  nor  more  than  forty  minis- 
terial and  lay  delegates  in  equal  numbers  .  .  .  from  each  of  the 
foreign  Regional  Jurisdictions." 

Edgar  Blake:  I  do  not  see  how  that  is  affected  at  all. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  Suppose  instead  of  the  number  specified  you 
should  have  twice  that  number  of  foreign  Regional  Conferences. 
They  will  certainly  be  rearranged  if  the  desire  of  Dr.  Nast  is 
carried  out;  and  it  may  be  found  necessary  to  change  the  num- 
ber. Thus  you  change  the  voting  strength  in  the  General  Con- 
ference.  You  will  have  to  consider  that  whole  matter. 

P.  H.  Linn :  It  would  still  be  in  the  power  of  the  General 
Conference  to  fix  it  in  view  of  proposed  voting  strength.  The 
General  Conference  would  have  that  matter  before  it  when  it 
fixed  the  boundaries. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  But  then  it  reads,  "of  not  less  than  ten  from 
each/'  You  would  have  to  have  that,  and  you  have  agreed  as 
to  the  number  of  members  of  the  General  Conference.  That 
will  affect  the  membership  of  the  General  Conference. 

F.  M.  Thomas:  Is  not  this  also  true?  I  may  be  mistaken. 
Is  it  not  true  that  it  would  affect  the  voting  power  on  constitu- 
tional matters? 

P.  H.  Linn :  That  is  confined  to  Regions  in  the  United  States. 
Bishop  Mouzon:  Where  is  that  indicated? 
F.  M.  Thomas:  Page  10,  lines  8  to  11. 

J.  H.  Reynolds:  But  they  will  vote  as  Annual  Conferences 
on  constitutional  amendments,  as  the  amending  clause  now 
stands  on  page  12.  That  exists  to-day  in  both  Churches,  and 
would  seem  to  be  carried  over  by  this  amending  clause  into  the 
new  Church. 

Edgar  Blake:  If  you  think  there  is  a  real  difficulty  in  the 
point  raised  by  Bishop  Mouzon,  as  to  having  a  large  number  of 
these  foreign  Regional  Conferences,  which  would  oblige  us  to 
give  a  minimum  representation  of  ten  to  each  of  these  bodies, 
you  can  strike  out  that  minimum  representation  in  line  10,  page 
6,  so  that  your  section  will  read,  "of  not  more  than  forty  minis- 
terial and  lay  delegates  in  equal  numbers. " 

D.  G.  Downey:  Could  we  accomplish  the  purpose  by  adding 
a  clause  to  Dr.  Nast's  statement — namely,  "provided,  however, 
that  such  determination  shall  be  in  harmony  with  the  other  pro- 
visions of  this  Constitution"? 


Louisville  Meeting 


505 


The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  That  would  have  to  be 
so  anyhow. 

D.  G.  Downey:  I  wonder  if  that  would  not  cover  the  point. 
They  would  have  to  consider  the  matter  of  representation  in  the 
General  Conference. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  There  is  no  motion  before 
us. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  was  about  to  make  one.  Look  on  page  9, 
lines  6  and  7.  I  move  that  the  words  "in  the  months  of  April 
or  May"  be  stricken  out,  so  that  the  sentence  will  read:  "The 
General  Conference  shall  meet  once  in  four  years  perpetually 
at  such  time  and  place  as  shall  be  fixed  by  the  preceding  General 
Conference,  or  by  a  commission  to  be  appointed  quadrennially," 
etc. 

This  motion  was  seconded. 

C.  A.  Pollock :  My  reason  for  seconding  that  is  this :  Suppose 
we  should  have  the  influenza,  or  some  other  epidemic  of  that 
description,  so  that  we  could  not  have  it  in  the  months  of  April 
or  May.  But  with  those  words  out  it  is  left  with  the  authoriz- 
ing body  to  call  the  Conference  at  least  once  in  four  years. 

Bishop  Denny :  I  am  about  to  second  that  motion.  I  am  about 
to  make  a  statement  which  will  provoke  a  smile  from  men  who 
have  not  thought  deeply  over  what  Patrick  Henry  meant  when 
he  said  that  he  knew  no  method  of  judging  the  future  but  by  the 
past.  It  seems  that  any  reference  to  the  past  provokes  amuse- 
ment or  scorn  from  some  brethren.  In  1850  cholera  prevailed 
in  St.  Louis  during  the  period  in  which  our  General  Conference 
met  there.  Statements,  erroneous  as  a  matter  of  fact,  have  been 
made  that  H.  B.  Bascom  took  the  cholera  while  attending  that 
General  Conference.  In  one  of  the  early  General  Conferences 
of  Bishop  Asbury,  I  think  in  1796,  Bishop  Asbury  and  Bishop 
Coke  changed  the  General  Conference  from  May  to  a  later  date 
because  of  the  scourge  of  yellow  fever  in  Baltimore.  I  question 
the  wisdom  of  limiting  the  time  of  the  General  Conference  to 
April  or  May.  Let  them  meet  at  such  time  as  it  is  found  neces- 
sary to  meet. 

D.  G.  Downey :  I  call  the  attention  of  those  who  wanted  the 
time  changed  to  the  fact  that  the  method  of  change  is  provided 
for  in  the  paragraph  itself — "at  such  time  and  place  as  shall  be 
fixed  by  the  preceding  General  Conference,  or  by  a  commission 
to  be  appointed  quadrennially  by  the  General  Conference;  and 
the  commission  shall  have  power  to  change  the  place,  a  majority 
of  the  General  Superintendents  concurring."  Well,  that  does 
not  say  to  change  the  time,  but  you  can  put  that  in. 

Bishop  Cooke:  The  General  Conference  has  full  power  to  do 
many  things.  But  it  is  lacking  in  divine  omniscience,  and  cannot 
predict  the  possibility  of  an  epidemic.    Furthermore,  there  is  a 


506     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


great  satisfaction  through  the  whole  Church  in  knowing  that 
there  is  a  definite  time  toward  which  all  the  movements  of  the 
Church  move.  "The  General  Conference  shall  meet  in  the 
months  of  April  or  May."  There  is  a  great  advantage  in  the 
whole  Church's  knowing  that  there  is  a  fixed  time,  and  toward 
the  one  definite  event  all  the  minds  of  the  Church  turn.  Now, 
if  there  should  arise  at  any  time  in  the  providence  of  God  such 
an  epidemic  as  would  render  the  meeting  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence impracticable,  the  Commission  would  have  the  right,  ac- 
cording to  this  paragraph  itself,  to  fix  such  other  time  as  might 
be  necessary.  It  has  got  to  meet  once  in  four  years.  That  is 
certain.  That  is  in  the  document.  It  has  got  to  meet  in  some 
place.  If  it  does  not  meet  in  April  or  May,  the  Commission  shall 
appoint  when  it  shall  meet,  for  it  must  meet  once  in  four  years. 

On  motion  of  J.  E.  Dickey,  the  previous  question  was  ordered. 

C.  A.  Pollock :  The  motion  is  simply  to  strike  out  the  words 
"in  the  months  of  April  or  May." 

The  motion  was  put  and  carried. 

Bishop  Denny :  I  move  that  after  the  word  "place,"  in  line 
io,  you  add  "and  time." 
J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  That  is  all  in  now. 

C.  W.  Kinne :  The  power  to  change  is  not  there,  though  the 
power  to  fix  is. 

Bishop  Denny's  motion  prevailed. 

Edgar  Blake:  If  this  motion  creates  any  discussion,  I  will 
withdraw  it.  I  want  to  call  attention  to  this,  that  we  have  here 
a  number  of  items  which  seem  to  me  not  to  belong  to  a  consti- 
tution. They  are  really  not  statutory  matters,  but  matters  of 
parliamentary  procedure.  Line  14,  page  9,  "When  the  time  for 
the  opening  of  the  General  Conference  has  arrived,  one  of  the 
general  superintendents,  designated  by  the  Board  of  Bishops, 
shall  take  the  chair  and  conduct  the  opening  devotions  of  the 
session,"  etc.    I  move  that  lines  14  to  18  be  stricken  out. 

Bishop  Cooke:  If  other  matters  in  this  Constitution,  which 
we  are  making  under  a  five-minutes  rule,  under  tremendous  pres- 
sure, a  Constitution  which  is  supposed  to  last  forever,  and  we 
are  to  do  it  between  three  and  five  minutes,  which  fact  I  think 
the  General  Conference  and  the  whole  Church  ought  to  be  ap- 
prised of,  and  we  say  that  we  are  unable  to  give  mature  consid- 
eration— 

Edgar  Blake :  I  move  an  extension  of  time  to  Bishop  Cooke. 

Bishop  Cooke :  I  do  not  wish  any  rights  not  given  to  every- 
body else.  Since  we  have  undertaken  to  state  that  we  have  re- 
duced our  episcopacy  to  a  mere  abstraction,  and  since  in  this 
document  we  have  given  the  bishop  no  place  in  the  General  Con- 
ference, no  right  to  the  floor,  and  he  can  serve  on  no  committee, 
and  only  one  man,  or  more,  is  to  preside,  and  if  more,  then  only 


Louisville  Meeting 


507 


one  more ;  and  since  all  these  things  have  taken  away  the  epis- 
copacy, and  the  bishop,  I  say,  has  no  voice  in  the  General  Con- 
ference or  Regional  Conference,  where  is  the  need  of  a  bishop's 
being  at  the  General  Conference  at  all?  What  is  he  there  for? 
With  that  in  view,  and  in  order  to  give  emphasis  to  the  cumu- 
lative argument  against  the  episcopacy  and  for  reducing  the 
whole  polity  of  our  Church  to  a  presbyterial  plan,  I  heartily 
agree  with  Dr.  Blake. 

F.  M.  Thomas :  I  can  answer  Bishop  Cooke's  question,  at 
least  from  practical  experience.  It  enables  a  bishop  to  feel  how 
members  of  an  Annual  Conference  feel ! 

Edgar  Blake :  My  motion  is  to  strike  out  lines  14  to  18,  page  9. 

This  motion  prevailed. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  offer  another  motion.  If  this  excites  discus- 
sion, I  will  withdraw  it.  What  is  mentioned  in  lines  24  to  27, 
on  the  same  page,  belongs  to  matters  of  procedure  rather  than 
in  the  Constitution. 

Bishop  Denny :  There  certainly  will  be  discussion. 

Edgar  Blake:  Then  I  withdraw  it. 

Rolla  V.  Watt :  I  have  a  motion  to  offer  which  I  will  not  prom- 
ise to  withdraw  if  it  creates  discussion,  because  I  am  sure  it 
will.  I  want  to  move,  in  place  of  page  7,  lines  18  to  27,  and 
over  on  to  page  8,  lines  1  and  2,  the  following,  and  I  hope  I  will 
get  a  second :  "The  bishops  shall  be  assigned  by  the  General 
Conference  for  residential  supervision,  but  any  bishop  may  be 
assigned  by  the  general  superintendents  to  any  Annual  Confer- 
ence for  presidential  supervision."  I  offer  that  in  place  of  all 
in  those  lines. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  Do  I  understand  from  that  that  Brother 
WTatt  means  that  a  colored  bishop  may  be  assigned  to  a  white 
Region?   Is  that  what  you  are  driving  at? 

Rolla  V.  Watt :  I  do  not  see  how  you  could  ask  that  question. 
You  must  know  that  I  have  more  sense  than  to  expect  that  that 
thing  could  be  done  by  the  General  Conference.  Nor  do  I  be- 
lieve for  one  minute  that  the  general  superintendents  of  our 
Church  would  assign  colored  bishops  to  preside  in  any  white 
Conference. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  Does  not  the  proposed  amendment  make  it 
possible  to  do  that? 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  Yes.  But  I  have  some  confidence  in  my 
Church  and  my  people. 

Bishop  Moore:  I  doubt  if  that  is  possible. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  If  I  could  get  a  moment  or  two,  I  think  I 
could  explain.  Personally,  of  course  you  know,  I  think,  that 
I  object  to  the  election  of  bishops  by  the  Regional  Conferences, 
as  belittling  the  office  of  the  bishop.  I  believe  we  will  get  better 
selections  for  the  episcopacy  by  elections  by  the  General  Con- 


508     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


ference.  But  some  people  are  afraid  of  that  and  feel  that  there 
might  not  be  an  equal  distribution  of  bishops  among  the  entire 
Church.  My  feeling  is  that,  when  we  have  united  these  Churches, 
all  the  bishops  are  my  bishops.  I  object  to  any  suggestion  that 
such  a  one  is  a  Southern  bishop  and  such  a  one  a  Northern 
bishop.  If  we  are  going  to  unite  these  two  great  Churches,  when 
we  are  united  it  is  going  to  be  my  Church.  And  every  bishop 
that  is  already  elected,  or  who  shall  be  elected,  will  be  a  bishop 
of  my  Church,  whether  he  is  from  the  North  or  the  South.  By 
providing  that  his  activities  are  to  be  confined  to  his  region,  with 
certain  exceptions,  you  degrade  him.  Your  General  Conference 
officers,  the  Missionary  Secretaries,  the  Publishing  Agents,  will 
be  more  nearly  general  superintendents  than  our  bishops.  They 
will  have  more  power  of  administration  than  our  bishops.  I 
do  not  believe  in  it  for  a  minute.  I  would  like  to  see  the  office 
maintained  in  its  highest  state,  in  the  place  it  has  occupied  from 
the  beginning  of  the  Church.  If  you  think  it  is  best  that  they 
shall  be  elected  by  the  Regions,  let  the  General  Conference  take 
the  responsibility  of  consummation;  and  when  they  are  once 
elected,  they  shall  be  subject  to  the  General  Conference,  and 
subject  to  assignment  to  their  areas.  I  believe  in  the  areal  sys- 
tem, which  gives  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  more  careful 
supervision  than  ever  before.  It  was  adopted  at  Minneapolis. 
After  four  years  trial  there  was  not  one  single  memorial  in  op- 
position to  it.  Before  that,  there  never  was  a  time  when  a  bishop 
was  required  to  make  a  report  of  his  work  to  the  General  Con- 
ference. Before  that  a  bishop  could  do  as  he  pleased.  Now  the 
responsibility  of  the  area  is  on  the  shoulders  of  the  bishop,  and 
he  has  to  make  a  written  report  of  his  administration  to  the 
General  Conference.  I  believe  that  by  confining  the  bishop  to 
the  Regional  Conference  by  which  he  is  elected,  and  permitting 
him  only  to  be  assigned  by  the  General  Conference  by  the  cir- 
cumlocution which  is  very  difficult,  and  preventing  him  from 
even  presiding  in  an  Annual  Conference  in  another  Region,  you 
belittle  the  office  and  actually  do  away  with  episcopacy  and  vio- 
late the  purpose  and  intent  of  that  general  word.  I  am  anxious 
that  this  amendment  be  adopted.  We  can  trust  the  South.  I 
think  the  South  can  trust  the  North.  If  we  propose  to  keep  up 
forever  this  dividing  line,  there  is  no  use  in  our  uniting.  I  am 
strongly  in  favor  of  making  these  men  bishops  of  the  whole 
Church,  subject  to  assignment  by  the  General  Conference,  ac- 
cording to  the  practice  of  the  two  Churches. 

Bishop  Cooke  :  I  am  in  favor  of  the  amendment  offered  by 
Brother  Watt,  for  one  reason  among  many,  that  this  section  in- 
dicated by  him  negatives  what  is  said  on  page  8  in  that  meaning- 
less, tautological,  and  inconsequent  item  we  have  here  under 
Section  2 :  "The  General  Conference  shall  not  change  or  alter 


Louisville  Meeting 


509 


any  part  or  rule  of  our  government  so  as  to  do  away  with  epis- 
copacy, or  to  destroy  our  itinerant  general  superintendency." 
What  the  General  Conference  cannot  do,  you  have  put  it  into 
the  power  of  one  man  in  a  majority  of  the  bishops  of  a  Regional 
Conference  to  do.  Not  only  do  you  give  him  the  power  to  nega- 
tive this  rule  as  to  what  the  General  Conference  shall  not  do, 
but  you  also  put  it  into  the  power  of  the  delegates  of  the  Re- 
gional Conference  to  do  it.  Now,  if  you  notice  those  words,  "or 
destroy  our  itinerant  general  superintendency" — and  the  super- 
intendency is  not  itinerant ;  we  have  a  sectionalized  itinerancy ! 
We  are  sectionalizir^;-  the  Church  and  the  government,  and  we 
head  up  in  a  sectionalized  episcopacy !  No  bishop  can  move 
out  of  his  Region  unless  the  majority  of  the  bishops  in  another 
Region  permit  him  to  do  so !  Is  that  the  episcopacy  of  Meth- 
odism? Is  not  that  the  very  thing  that  McKendree  drew  up 
charges  against  George  for  trying  to  do?  In  1825  George,  act- 
ing on  a  direction  of  a  previous  General  Conference,  did  assume 
the  presidency  of  the  Northern  Conference.  In  1826,  when 
McKendree  and  Soule  came  up  to  Philadelphia  to  hold  the  first 
bishops'  meeting,  Bishop  George  did  not  want  to  recognize  the 
episcopal  function  of  either  of  those  bishops.  In  1826  Bishop 
George  put  that  into  operation  against  McKendree  and  Soule. 
McKendree  brought  charges  against  him,  but  never  presented 
them.  W7hat  they  said  should  not  be  done,  this  proposes  shall 
be  done.  So  you  have  no  longer  an  itinerant  general  superin- 
tendency. For  what  is  the  meaning  of  "itinerant,"  and  of  that 
clause,  anyway,  in  our  history?  It  does  not  mean  that  a  man 
shall  get  into  a  Pullman  car  and  ride  from  Dan  to  Beersheba 
looking  out  of  the  windows.  The  itinerant  episcopacy  is  a  uni- 
versally functioning  episcopacy.  It  does  not  simply  mean  rid- 
ing through  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land.  And  if  a  bishop 
cannot  function,  he  is  not  a  traveling  bishop,  and  he  has  no 
more  place  among  us,  according  to  the  Disciplines  of  both  of 
our  Churches.  But  you  are  doing  away  with  the  itinerant  epis- 
copacy. You  are  instituting  a  diocesan  episcopacy.  We  are 
substituting  diocesan  episcopacy  and  doing  away  with  the  entire 
government.  If  that  is  what  the  Methodist  people  want,  it  is 
what  they  want!  But  let  us  understand  just  exactly  what  we 
are  doing  and  recommending  to  our  people.  Let  us  have  no 
camouflage  about  it.  Let  it  be  distinctly  understood  we  are  do- 
ing away  with  the  Methodist  episcopacy.  You  are  putting  out 
the  words  "the  plan  of."  That  phrase  reaches  to  the  very  es- 
sence and  character  of  the  episcopacy.  In  1784  we  said,  "We 
will  institute  a  moderate  episcopacy  under  the  leadership  of 
bishops  and  elders  and  helpers."  And  now  when  you  do  away 
with  that,  "the  plan  of,"  or  "kind  of,"  or  "character  of" — when 
you  do  away  with  the  meaning  of  the  word,  you  do  away  the 


510     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


thing.  You  are  retaining  the  language  of  the  old  Church,  but 
with  new  meaning.  You  are  trying  to  put  new  wine  into  old 
bottles.    [Time  expired.] 

D.  G.  Downey :  I  want  to  make  an  amendment  to  Brother 
Watt's  motion,  and  then  explain  it.  My  amendment  is  simply 
to  strike  out  on  page  7,  in  lines  21,  22,  23,  the  words,  "if  a 
majority  of  the  resident  bishops  of  the  jurisdiction  to  which  he 
is  assigned  shall  concur  in  said  assignment."  I  move  to  strike 
out  so  that  the  whole  paragraph  shall  read,  "A  bishop  shall  be 
assigned  by  the  General  Conference  for  residential  supervision 
to  the  Regional  Jurisdiction  by  or  for  which  he  was  elected,  but 
any  bishop,  except  as  herein  otherwise  provided,  may  be  as- 
signed by  the  general  superintendents  to  any  Annual  Conference 
for  presidential  supervision ;  but  such  concurrence  shall  not  be 
necessary  in  the  case  of  assignment  to  a  colored  or  foreign  Re- 
gional Jurisdiction."  Or  cut  out  the  whole  thing  after  "presi- 
dential supervision."  On  page  3,  lines  27  and  28,  and  page  4, 
lines  1  to  5,  that  matter  is  definitely  fixed  and  provided  for.  If 
we  take  out  this  limiting  clause  here,  which  I  suggest  as  an 
amendment  to  Mr.  Watt's  motion,  it  makes  it  perfectly  possible 
for  our  white  bishops  to  be  assigned  for  presidency  anywhere  in 
the  connection — for  presidential  supervision.  I  believe  that  that 
preserves  the  dignity  of  the  general  superintendence7.  And  that 
by  this  we  will  do  a  good  thing  for  the  Church  and  the  cause 
of  God,  and  for  our  communion,  in  that  our  bishops  will  cir- 
culate freely  and  will  be,  as  they  ought  to  be,  a  unifying  bond  in 
the  reorganized  Church.  This  was  stricken  out  at  St.  Louis, 
but  somehow  it  has  got  back.  It  would  be  a  very  good  thing 
for  us  to  come  together  for  the  omission  of  this  limiting  clause. 

R.  E.  Blackwell :  I  think  we  had  better  not  touch  that.  We 
had  better  leave  it  to  the  bishops  resident  in  the  jurisdiction  to 
decide  that.  I  do  not  believe  it  would  change  the  situation  any 
way.  I  do  not  believe  any  man  would  be  assigned  from  one 
section  to  another  when  it  was  known  that  the  bishops  of  that 
particular  region  did  not  want  him  there.  And  therefore  I  say 
you  had  better  leave  it  as  it  is  and  let  us  work  through  Mr. 
Watt's  arrangement. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  You  leave  it  tied  up  so  that  you  will  never 
change  it. 

R.  E.  Blackwell :  When  the  proper  time  comes,  there  will  be 
no  objection  on  the  part  of  the  majority  of  the  resident  bishops. 
We  ought  not  to  change  this  now.  It  will  bring  up  the  whole 
question  over  which  we  have  difficulty  among  ourselves.  We 
had  better  let  it  "stay  put,"  and  work  toward  the  right  concert  of 
feeling  between  the  various  sections. 

P.  H.  Linn :  I  am  opposed  to  both  the  motion  and  the  amend- 
ment ;  and  am  opposed  to  it,  with  full  sympathy  with  what  has 


Louisville  Meeting 


been  said  about  the  general  nature  of  our  episcopacy.  It  does 
not  limit  it,  statements  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  I  sin- 
cerely hope,  and  I  believe  the  unification  of  the  Church,  after 
unity  has  been  secured  in  outward  form,  will  be  accomplished 
more  by  the  free  assignment  of  bishops  from  other  regions.  But 
we  all  know  that  there  are  bishops  who  have  certain  ideals,  both 
North  and  South,  that  would  make  it  a  very  unfortunate  thing 
if  they  should  be  assigned  for  supervision  in  the  other  section. 
Nobody  knows  the  feeling  of  a  section  so  well  as  those  bishops 
who  are  elected  from  that  section.  And  if  a  majority  of  them 
think  that  it  is  unwise  for  a  bishop  to  preside  there,  by  all  means 
he  ought  not  to  preside  there.  More  than  that,  the  statement 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  clause  does  not  carry  the  same  matter  as 
the  other  sections  referred  to  by  Dr.  Downey.  The  first  refers 
to  a  possible  presidency  of  a  colored  bishop  in  white  Confer- 
ences. This  relates  to  the  matter  of  presidency  of  a  white  bishop 
in  colored  Conferences.  The  two  are  entirely  different  things. 
I  am  quite  certain  it  will  be  impossible  to  get  through  our  dele- 
gation a  modification  as  striking  as  that  proposed  section  con- 
cerning the  presidency  and  the  residence  of  bishops. 

Bishop  Cooke:  Of  course  we  all  agree  with  the  real  thing;  we 
understand  what  we  mean.  I  do  not  believe  there  is  anything 
but  absolute  harmony  in  our  inner  minds  and  hearts  upon  the 
real  thing.  The  General  Conference  assigns  the  bishop,  does  it 
not? 

P.  H.  Linn :  No,  sir.  It  is  done  by  a  vote  of  the  bishops  them- 
selves. 

Bishop  Cooke :  The  General  Conference  assigns  the  bishops, 
with  such  proviso.  "A  bishop  shall  be  assigned  by  the  General 
Conference  for  residential  supervision  to  the  Regional  Jurisdic- 
tion by  or  for  which  he  was  elected;  but  any  bishop,  except  as 
herein  otherwise  provided,  may  be  assigned  by  the  general  super- 
intendents to  any  Annual  Conference  for  presidential  supervi- 
sion, if  a  majority  of  the  resident  bishops  of  the  jurisdiction  to 
which  he  is  assigned  shall  concur  in  said  assignment."  That 
relates  to  assignment  in  presidential  supervision.  What  prohibits 
the  General  Conference  from  sending  any  bishop  to  reside  in 
that  Region? 

A  Voice :  Read  the  next  paragraph. 

Bishop  Cooke :  Now  you  are  coming  to  delegates. 

P.  H.  Linn :  You  do  not  require  the  same  bishop  to  be  the 
resident  bishop  and  the  president  bishop  of  a  Conference  within 
the  episcopal  area. 

Bishop  Cooke:  Certainly.  Let  us  not  get  confused.  A  bishop 
assigned  by  the  General  Conference  to  a  Region  must  stay  in  that 
Region. 

P.  H.  Linn :  He  must  live  there  for  residential  purposes. 


512     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

There  is  a  distinction  between  residential  and  presidential  super- 
vision. For  purposes  of  residential  supervision,  a  certain  speci- 
fied plan  is  made  in  this  section.  For  presidential  supervision, 
another  perfectly  simple  plan  is  provided  in  the  case;  and  be- 
cause of  the  discrimination  between  those  two  things,  recognized 
in  your  own  Church,  the  matter  is  perfectly  clear  as  it  stands 
right  now. 

E.  B.  Chappell :  I  am  going  to  call  for  the  previous  question, 
simply  because  this  thing  has  been  thoroughly  discussed  before. 

The  call  for  the  previous  question  was  not  sustained. 

Bishop  Denny:  I  should  not  take  a  moment  of  time, -that  is 
valuable  (and  the  value  of  time  is  appreciated  by  the  Commis- 
sion) if  any  one  had  touched  what  I  believe  to  be  the  very  center 
of  this  question.  The  arrangement  provided  for  in  this  paper 
was  made  so  that  no  Region  could  have  forced  on  it  a  man  in 
whose  election  they  did  not  participate  or  would  not  have  par- 
ticipated. I  am  giving  away  no  secret  when  I  say  that  in  our 
own  Church  there  are  bishops  who  could  not  be  sent  to  certain 
sections.  I  do  not  know  whether  you  suffer  from  the  same 
inability,  but  we  have  that.  While  the  episcopacy  is  a  very 
small  matter  in  this  paper,  reduced  to  a  minimum,  at  the  same 
time  I  can  see  how  no  Region  would  ask  the  privilege  of  elect- 
ing a  man  to  office  and  then  having  any  man,  whether  he  were 
agreeable  to  them  or  not,  put  on  them  for  either  residential  or 
presidential  supervision.  That  is  one  point,  as  you  will  remem- 
ber, Mr.  President,  over  which  we  had  considerable  discussion 
as  far  back  as  Chattanooga  in  191 1. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  There  are  two  sides  to 
this.  In  which  way  you  will  take  it  depends  on  your  idea  of 
what  ought  to  be  the  future  policy  of  the  Church  in  the  matter 
of  democracy.  You  adopt  this  plan,  and  by  it  you  certainly  take 
a  long  step  toward  diocesan  episcopacy.  On  the  other  hand,  if 
you  refuse  to  adopt  it,  you  take  away  from  the  people  who, 
under  the  most  enlightened  application  of  democracy,  certainly 
have  the  right  to  it,  just  what  is  provided  in  this  Constitution 
as  their  right.  We  are  in  a  critical  time  in  the  evolution  of  gov- 
ernment. A  constitution  that  cannot  be  amended  is  restrictive 
and  is  in  antagonism  to  progress  itself.  A  democracy  with  a 
constitution  that  cannot  be  amended  is  a  retarded  democracy. 
We  may  be  progressive!  It  may  be  that  the  time  has  come  for 
us  to  get  away  from  the  idea  of  the  universally  applied  episco- 
pacy. But  here  we  are.  I  am  glad  this  discussion  came  on.  I 
think  the  record  will  be  of  value  to  the  future  as  interpretative 
of  the  evolution  of  Methodism  and,  I  trust,  the  evolution  of 
episcopacy.  But  mark  you,  we  are  going  toward  a  diocesan  epis- 
copacy as  you  go  in  this  direction. 

Rolla  V.  Watt :  At  St.  Louis  I  was  especially  gratified  that 


Louisville  Meeting 


513 


the  motion  of  Dr.  Du  Bose  (now  Bishop  Du  Bose)  to  strike  out, 
"If  a  majority  of  the  resident  bishops  of  the  Region  to  which 
he  is  assigned  shall  concur  in  said  assignment,"  was  adopted. 
I  was  glad  that  the  motion  came  from  one  of  the  delegates  of 
the  Church,  South.  I  was  glad  it  was  adopted.  I  was  very 
much  surprised  when  I  got  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Four- 
teen to  find  that  those  words  had  been  reinstated.  I  do  not 
know  that  I  ought  to  have  any  higher  regard  for  the  office  of 
bishop  than  the  bishops  do  themselves.  But  I  feel  that  I  can 
trust  the  Board  of  Bishops  to  make  the  assignments  with  wis- 
dom. I  think  this  restriction  here  is  belittling,  not  only  to  the 
bishops,  but  to  the  Christ.  I  think  the  words  should  be  elimi- 
nated. I  think  my  amendment  is  better  for  the  future  of  the 
Church.  But  I  would  be  satisfied  with  Dr.  Downey's  amend- 
ment, relying  on  the  Board  of  Bishops  to  make  assignments  for 
presidential  administration  wisely.  I  think  the  inclusion  of 
these  words  in  this  report  will  have  a  very  bad  effect  in  the 
Northern  Church  when  this  thing  comes  to  be  voted  upon  for 
final  adoption. 

F.  M.  Thomas :  I  wrote  to  a  friend  that  at  our  meeting  in 
Richmond  this  report  of  the  Committee  of  Fourteen  was  as  deli- 
cately balanced  as  an  egg  on  its  point.  I  think  that  we  have 
tried  to  harmonize.  I  was  thinking  about  it  last  night,  just  try- 
ing to  review  it  from  the  purely  intellectual  outlook.  I  think 
it  is  a  wonderful  piece  of  work  we  have  done — excuse  me — 
which  you  have  done.  I  said  yesterday  that  some  of  these  re- 
ports cut  clear  across  my  intellectual  landscape  and  bring  my 
intellectual  blood.  But  I  have  got  to  face  that,  and  you  have 
got  to  face  it  also.  It  is  a  question  of  give  and  take.  But  I 
believe  on  this  fundamental  point  I  want  to  say  this  (and  Bish- 
op Cranston  will  bear  me  out),  that  when  we  met  at  Cincinnati, 
in  those  discussions  that  lasted  two  days — I  wish  we  had  a  tran- 
script, because  I  will  say  this,  excepting  for  Bishop  Cranston 
and  Bishop  Hoss,  now  gone,  they  were  the  greatest  speeches  I 
have  ever  heard  in  the  Joint  Commission,  masterpieces  that  I 
wish  had  been  preserved.  The  very  first  question  that  con- 
fronted us  when  we  met  was  the  episcopacy.  That  thing  has 
been  coming  on  down.  I  am  not  satisfied  with  this  report  on  the 
episcopacy.  I  am  frank  to  say  that  it  eviscerates  the  episcopacy 
in  many  points.  I  am  sure  that  many  men  will  be  glad  to  hear 
me  say  that,  in  my  Church !  But  they  ought  to  know  the  facts. 
The  question  that  faces  us  as  to  Methodism,  and  the  great  ques- 
tion that  will  face  the  General  Conference,  is  the  kind  of  epis- 
copacy they  want  for  the  great  Church  in  the  future.  But  the 
time  is  past  when  we  can  change  the  final  solution  of  the  ques- 
tion, as  stated  here,  because  this  thing  is  delicately  interlocked. 
We  would  better  leave  it  alone. 
33 


514     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

On  motion  of  G.  \V.  Brown,  the  main  question  was  ordered 
to  be  put. 

Dr.  Downey's  amendment  to  Mr.  Watt's  motion  was  read — 
to  strike  out  on  page  7  everything  after  the  word  "supervision," 
in  line  21,  down  to  the  word  "jurisdiction,"  in  line  24. 

The  vote  by  show  of  hands  being  apparently  nearly  evenly 
divided,  a  count  vote  was  taken;  and  the  motion  was  lost  by  a 
vote  of  18  to  22. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  You  have  set  the  prefer- 
ence of  two  or  three  or  four  men  in  a  Regional  Conference  over 
against  the  judgment  of  the  whole  Board  of  Bishops.  Think 
that  through. 

P.  H.  Linn :  You  have  now  before  you  Mr.  Watt's  motion. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  If  Brother  Downey's  mo- 
tion was  a  substitute,  the  vote  comes  now  on  the  amendment  of 
Brother  Watt. 

This  amendment  was  not  adopted. 

Bishop  Denny:  I  wrish  to  call  attention  to  a  matter  of  consid- 
erable importance.  It  makes  very  little  difference  to  me  person- 
ally whether  this  new  Church,  which  will  be  wholly  different 
from  any  Church  any  of  us  has  ever  known,  has  the  episcopacy 
or  not.  I  think,  however,  our  attention  ought  to  be  called  to  the 
fact  that  there  must  be  an  executive  in  the  Church.  The  only 
executive  provided  for  in  this  paper  is  what  you  call  the  epis- 
copacy. Now,  if  you  have  looked  carefully  into  the  statements 
contained  in  this  paper,  you  will  find  that  you  have  no  functions 
for  the  episcopacy.  I  have  read  the  paper  through  with  refer- 
ence to  that,  and  call  your  attention  to  those  statements  as  ex- 
haustive, so  far  as  this  reading  enables  me  to  determine.  The 
bishops  ordain  the  bishops.  Do  they  ordain  anybody  else?  It 
is  not  inherent  in  our  episcopacy.  It  is  a  grant  or  a  duty  laid 
on  the  episcopacy  from  1784  through  1808.  and  then  fixed  in  the 
Constitution.  But  it  is  not  an  essential  inherent  quality  or  func- 
tion in  our  episcopacy.  The  "itinerant  general  superintendency" 
is  provided  for  on  page  8,  lines  20  to  22,  but  no  content  is  given 
to  the  statement  of  what  superintendency  is.  I  will  quote  here 
what  I  took  occasion  to  state  in  our  Commission,  that  we  have 
come,  seemingly  purposely,  to  the  very  position  that  Hamline 
asserted  to  be  the  existing  provision  at  that  time  of  the  episco- 
pacy; that  is,  to  quote  his  exact  words,  with  a  little  hesitation 
about  one  or  two  of  them,  the  episcopacy  is  an  abstraction  which 
the  General  Conference  can  mold  into  concrete  form  in  any  one 
of  a  hundred  or  more  ways,  according  to  its  pleasure.  That 
doctrine  divided  American  Methodism.  This  body  has  written 
into  this  paper  that  very  fact.  I  think  we  ought  to  understand 
it.  If  that  is  what  we  want  to  do,  we  ought  to  understand  the 
fact.    The  bishops'  consent  is  necessary  to  change  the  place  or 


Louisville  Meeting 


515 


time  of  the  General  Conference,  "time"  having  been  put  in  this 
morning.  They  call  a  special  session  of  the  General  Conference 
in  case  of  necessity.  They  open  the  General  Conference,  and 
preside.  That  was  stricken  out.  They  nominate  the  Judicial 
Council,  and  they  have  the  right  to  appeal  from  a  connectional 
board  or  other  connectional  body.  One  presides  over  the  Gen- 
eral Conference.  But  he  may  be  only  a  chairman,  such  as  the 
chairman  of  a  banquet.  Now,  in  those  points,  Mr.  President,  is 
the  specified  grant  of  the  all-inclusive  General  Conference,  which 
is  given  more  power  and  has  less  limit  than  any  legislature  on 
the  face  of  this  green  globe.  But  I  shall  be  glad  to  have  any 
one  turn  my  attention  to  any  legislative  body  now  existing  that 
has  as  all-inclusive  power  as  is  provided  for  in  this  General  Con- 
ference. We  put  it  specifically  that  the  privileges,  the  powers, 
the  duties,  of  this  so-called  episcopacy  are  to  be  determined  by 
the  General  Conference.  No  man  who  has  ever  been  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  can  doubt  that  time  and  time  again  General 
Conferences  are  swept  by  a  wave  of  sudden  emotion  or  passion 
or  prejudice.  There  is  not  a  solitary  function,  except  those  few 
points  that  I  have  referred  to,  that  cannot  by  a  simple  majority 
of  the  General  Conference  be  swept  out  of  the  hands  of  the  only 
executive  for  which  you  have  provided.  Now,  if  you  regard  as 
matters  of  any  moment  at  all  the  discussions  of  what  I  believe 
to  be  the  greatest  body  of  men  that  ever  gathered  to  consider 
constitutional  questions — that  is,  those  fifty-five  men  who  sat  in 
Philadelphia  in  1787,  from  May  to  September,  in  order  to  have 
any  efficiency  in  a  government,  in  order  to  have  continuance  in 
a  government,  you  must  have  an  executive  that  is  not  subject 
to  the  sudden  whims  of  any  body.  If  that  is  what  you  want  to 
recommend,  you  certainly  here  recommend  it.  But  if  you  want 
to  have  anything  that  can  pass  for  efficiency,  if  you  want  some- 
body that  can  carry  out  the  laws  the  General  Conference  enacts, 
if  you  want  to  put  men  where  they  will  not  be  constantly  look- 
ing to  see  whether  fires  are  kindled  about  them,  you  will  have  to 
do  something  different  from  what  you  have  done  in  this  paper. 
Your  episcopacy,  your  executive,  so  far  as  you  have  provided 
for  it,  is  without  standing  in  dignity  or  in  law,  and  cannot  com- 
mand respect.  It  is  a  matter  of  indifference  to  me  whether  you 
have  any  episcopacy  or  not. 

P.  H.  Linn :  Where  do  we  get  the  powers  of  the  bishops  now, 
except  in  that  provision  of  the  restrictive  rule  and  in  the  acts  of 
the  General  Conference? 

Bishop  Denny :  After  taking  up  the  historical  setting,  which 
plays  no  inconsiderable  part  in  it,  the  most  pregnant  word  in  the 
history  of  our  episcopacy  in  either  Church  is  the  word  "plan." 
There  was  an  episcopacy  on  a  certain  plan.  There  was  the  in- 
quiry whether  that  episcopacy  should  be  fixed  or  not.   The  Gen- 


5 16     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

eral  Conference  of  1808  said  they  were  satisfied  with  the  episco- 
pacy on  this  "plan."  And  they  fixed  it  in  the  Constitution  of 
the  Church  by  the  use  of  the  word  "plan."  That  is  the  only 
thing  that  has  made  anything  like  an  efficient  episcopacy  in 
either  Church.  The  episcopacy  would  have  been  upset,  the 
Church  would  have  been  torn  in  fragments  in  1820,  when  the 
suspended  resolutions  were  adopted  and  Soule  declined  to  be  or- 
dained under  that  arrangement,  if  it  had  not  been  for  McKen- 
dree.  And  he  was  losing  the  confidence  and  affection  of  all  that 
portion  of  the  Church  which  went  off  as  the  Methodist  Protes- 
tant Church.  Now  you  have  made  this  provision  so  elastic  that 
I  doubt  whether  any  man  on  earth  can  interpret  it.  You  have 
said,  "If  unacceptable  or  inefficient,  a  bishop  can  be  set  aside." 
There  is  no  protection  for  innocency  against  the  sudden  whim  of 
a  bare  majority.  There  is  no  protection  for  character  against 
malice  that  may  surround  itself  with  a  simple  majority.  Breth- 
ren, if  you  want  that  kind  of  an  executive,  you  have  it  here.  But 
if  you  pay  any  attention  to  such  a  statement  as  George  Cabot 
made  in  connection  with  governmental  matters  (and  he  was  one 
of  the  greatest  men  and  would  have  been  one  of  the  best-known 
men  of  his  day,  if  he  had  not  cared  so  little  for  office) — he  has 
called  attention,  in  words  that  ring  through  the  books  to  this 
day,  to  the  fact  that  unless  you  put  men  in  a  position  where  they 
are  not  subject  to  the  sudden  passion  of  a  bare  majority,  you 
have  destroyed  the  efficiency  of  your  system.  I  am  not  ignorant 
of  the  attitude  of  the  people  in  the  Church  toward  the  episcopacy. 
I  know  the  attitude  of  brethren  around  me.  Why  not  strike  it 
out — cut  it  out  of  the  Constitution?  Do  away  with  it!  Set  up 
an  effective  executive  and  put  it  where  it  can  accomplish  some- 
thing. But  I  do  not  believe  this  will  do  it.  I  believe  you  will 
find  that  self-respecting  men,  seeing  what  will  be  the  outcome, 
will  say,  "You  cannot  put  me  where  you  can  deal  with  me  in 
such  a  way  as  that."  I  felt  responsible  to  emphasize  these  truths, 
so  far  as  I  can  emphasize  them. 

P.  H.  Linn  :  May  I  make  a  motion  about  procedure?  I  should 
like  to  move  that  at  the  afternoon  session,  following  the  roll  call, 
it  shall  be  the  order  of  the  day  to  consider  reports  of  committees. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  move  to  take  up  the  reports  of  committees 
now. 

A.  J.  Lamar :  A  point  of  order.  Dr.  Jones  had  the  floor  and 
yielded  it  to  Bishop  Denny. 

R.  E.  Jones :  I  move  to  strike  out  on  page  7.  line  24,  the  word 
"colored,"  where  it  reads,  "such  concurrence  shall  not  be  neces- 
sary in  the  case  of  assignment  to  a  Colored  or  Foreign  Regional 
Jurisdiction."  Elsewhere  it  is  provided  that  the  bishops  of  the 
Colored  Conference  shall  be  restricted  to  that  area  in  their 
powers  and  privileges.    This  makes  it  so  that  it  will  not  only 


Louisville  Meeting 


517 


be  the  case  that  these  bishops  shall  be  limited  in  their  power  to 
within  the  Region,  but  it  is  entirely  possible,  under  this  provision, 
that  a  man  will  be  totally  objectionable  to  us.  Secondly,  it 
makes  it  entirely  possible  that  the  entire  number  of  bishops  may 
be  assigned  to  all  our  Conferences.  I  know  that  is  a  very  far- 
fetched supposition ;  but  it  is  entirely  possible  to  set  all  the  bish- 
ops of  that  colored  Regional  Conference  on  the  shelf  for  a  year 
or  more.  I  think  it  is  entirely  enough  emaciation  of  that  epis- 
copacy to  say  that  it  is  to  be  limited  to  that  Region,  without 
putting  in  here,  after  saying  that  those  other  Regional  Confer- 
ences shall  not  have  bishops  unless  they  agree  to  them,  that  a 
man  may  be  put  on  the  colored  Regional  Conference  without  its 
consent.  It  does  not  help  anybody  to  put  it  in  there,  and  it  does 
give  offense  to  us.  It  will  hurt  this  document  among  us  if  that 
goes  in.  I  see  no  necessity  for  it  at  all.  I  will  go  back  and 
say,  if  Dr.  Downey's  motion  had  prevailed,  I  would  be  perfectly 
willing  that  a  bishop  should  be  assigned  to  our  Regional  Confer- 
ence for  presidential  supervision.  But  in  this  motion  you  single 
us  out,  for  you  give  us  a  limited  episcopacy,  and  may  send  a  man 
to  us  who  would  be  entirely  objectionable  to  us.  I  move  that 
the  word  "colored"  be  stricken  out. 
This  motion  was  seconded. 

Bishop  Moore :  I  am  not  sure  that  I  have  understood  Dr.  Jones. 
I  think  what  he  really  desires  is  that  the  bishops  of  the  colored 
Regional  Conference  should  have  the  privilege  of  saying  with 
reference  to  the  man  who  may  be  appointed,  "That  man  is  not 
acceptable  to  us."  So  far  as  I  can  see,  that  would  be  nothing 
more  than  fair.  I  would  not  as  a  bishop  want  to  preside  over 
their  Conference  if  I  knew  that  their  bishops  objected  to  my 
coming.  I  would  not  want  to  go  into  any  Region  to  preside  over 
any  Conference  if  I  should  know  that  the  bishops  residing  in 
that  Region  objected  to  my  coming.  I  think  if  we  have  that 
for  our  white  Methodism,  it  is  nothing  more  than  being  perfectly 
fair  to  our  colored  brethren,  if  a  man  is  objectionable  to  them, 
to  have  it  so  that  he  shall  not  be  sent  to  them. 

Dr.  Jones's  amendment  was  put  to  vote  and  carried. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  In  view  of  what  has  been  said  as  to  the 
impropriety  of  forcing  a  man  on  a  jurisdiction  where  he  is  not 
wanted,  I  move  to  strike  out  the  word  "foreign." 

This  motion  was  seconded. 

Edgar  Blake :  It  is  a  very  difficult  problem  on  the  foreign  field. 
There  may  come  a  time  when  it  would  be  very  advisable  that 
the  bishops  should  have  the  power  to  send  a  man  to  the  foreign 
field  to  investigate  conditions. 

A.  J.  Lamar :  I  wish  to  say  a  word.  Some  of  us  who  do  not 
think  that  that  plan,  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Fourteen, 
is  a  workable  plan,  have  taken  the  position  that  for  the  sake  of 


5 18     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

peace  we  were  willing  to  submit  that  plan  as  it  came  from  Rich- 
mond to  the  General  Conferences  without  recommendation,  as 
the  best  we  could  do  under  the  circumstances.  I  made  that  state- 
ment myself,  as  my  own  position,  to  Brother  Brown.  The 
amendment  that  you  have  adopted  knocked  out  that  statement, 
as  far  as  I  am  concerned. 
F.  M.  Thomas:  What? 

A.  J.  Lamar:  All  the  changes.  You  are  changing  the  whole 
thing.  Let  us  not  fool  ourselves  or  our  people.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  in  the  way  we  are  proceeding  we  are  not  uniting  the 
Churches ;  we  are  obliterating  two  Churches  and  not  uniting  the 
membership  of  those  Churches.  We  are  creating  a  new  thing 
under  the  sun,  an  untried  thing.  And  we  are  doing  it  in  the 
worst  day  in  the  history  of  our  country,  perhaps,  to  consider 
constitution-making.  We  are  considering  it  in  a  time  when 
everything  is  called  in  question.  WTild  theories  fill  the  air.  De- 
mocracy is  abused  so  as  to  be  confounded  with  Bolshevism.  This 
is  no  day  to  make  constitutions;  and  we  ought  to  go  slow.  We 
are  yielding  to  radical  theories.  What  is  your  episcopacy  as  you 
have  left  it  here?  The  bishop  is  only  the  moderator  of  certain 
bodies  which  shall  meet,  without  power  to  do  or  to  say  anything. 
There  is  no  doubt  about  that.  Do  not  let  us  confuse  the  sub- 
stance with  the  name.  We  are  ordaining  bishops,  but  they  are 
not  bishops  in  the  sense  that  any  one  on  earth  has  heretofore 
applied  the  term.  We  are  making  a  new  Church.  If  you  want 
to  do  that,  all  well  and  good.  I  have  no  particular  objection.  I 
have  not  a  great  deal  longer  to  stay  here.  I  can  be  religious 
under  a  congregational  form  of  government.  I  have  been  trying 
so  long  to  be  religious  that  I  believe  I  could  be  religious  to  the 
end  now  without  any  Church.  I  think  I  might  possibly  get  into 
the  kingdom.  But  don't  let  us  fool  ourselves  as  to  what  we  are 
doing.  You  are  absolutely  destroying  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South.  You  are  absolutely  destroying  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  And  you  are  recommending  to  the  General 
Conferences  of  these  two  Churches,  and  afterwards,  in  regular 
process,  to  the  Annual  Conferences — you  are  recommending  the 
substitution  of  an  entirely  new  Church  in  place  of  both  of  them. 
And  it  is  essentially  a  Congregational  Church.  There  is  no  use 
in  trying  to  fool  our  people.  Those  are  the  facts.  If  you  want 
to  do  that,  well  and  good — you  have  done  it !  I  can  agree,  as 
a  member  of  this  Commission,  to  submit  that  paper  to  my  Gen- 
eral Conference  without  recommendation.  But  not  if  you  are 
going  to  amend  and  amend  it  until  you  radically  change  the 
character  of  the  whole  paper. 

Bishop  Cannon :  In  what  radical  way  has  this  paper  been 
amended  this  morning,  except,  perhaps,  concerning  the  assign- 
ment of  a  bishop  to  the  colored  jurisdiction? 


Louisville  Meeting 


519 


A.  J.  Lamar :  I  am  not  speaking  particularly  about  this  morn- 
ing. I  am  talking  about  the  whole  matter.  You  are  changing 
everything.  Bishop  Cannon  was  not  a  member  of  the  Commis- 
sion when  we  met  in  Baltimore.  Gradually,  inch  by  inch,  the 
Southern  delegation  has  given  up  practically  everything  for 
which  we  contended  when  we  first  met.  Do  you  not  know  that 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  yielded  a  principle  when  they 
said  that  negro  representation  in  the  General  Conference  shall  be 
limited,  definitely  limited?  We  have  changed  the  whole  charac- 
ter of  things  since  we  started.  I  believe  that  is  the  best  you  can 
do,  under  difficult  circumstances.  I  am  willing  to  submit  it  with- 
out recommendation,  if  you  will  take  that  paper  just  as  it  stands 
and  blot  out  every  amendment. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  thought,  from  the  way  Dr.  Lamar  began, 
that  he  meant  something  had  occurred  within  the  last  session 
which  had  caused  him  to  change  his  mind  with  reference  to  sub- 
mitting it  as  the  best  we  can  do.  I  think  that  practically  all  the 
changes  we  have  made  since  the  report  was  submitted  have  been 
improvements.  I  think  the  brethren  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  have  agreed  to  our  requests,  and  we  have  in  the  main 
agreed  to  the  requests  they  made.  I  did  not  vote  for  the  last 
change  with  reference  to  assignment  to  the  colored  jurisdiction, 
because  I  felt  it  was  very  much  in  the  same  relation  as  a  foreign 
jurisdiction,  and  that  it  should  be  possible,  in  case  of  necessity, 
to  assign  a  bishop  to  the  colored  jurisdiction  without  the  consent 
of  their  bishops.  That  is  the  only  change  made  in  the  whole 
discussion  which  I  think  is  a  mistake  and  will  give  the  paper  a 
little  less  strength. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  I  think  there  was  a  second  to  my  motion  to 
strike  out  the  word  "foreign." 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Cranston)  :  With  some  experience  in 
the  foreign  field,  I  would  take  the  liberty  to  say  that  there  is  a 
difference.  Except  at  the  time  when  the  bishops  representing  the 
foreign  region  might  be  present,  it  would  be  very  difficult  to  re- 
ceive or  entertain  an  objection  to  a  proposed  assignment. 

Dr.  Van  Cleve's  amendment  was  put  to  vote  and  lost. 

Bishop  Mouzon :  The  committee  appointed  yesterday  to  con- 
sider the  harmonizing  of  certain  sections  in  this  report  dealing 
with  the  decisions  of  the  Judicial  Council  has  its  report  ready. 
Dr.  Wallace  has  the  report,  if  you  will  hear  it. 

J.  J.  Wallace:  The  matter  referred  to  us  was  subsection  II, 
line  9,  page  8 :  "To  consider,  and,  if  deemed  wise,  to  disapprove 
of  the  decisions  of  the  Judicial  Council  upon  any  constitutional 
question  and  to  require  its  submission  to  the  members  of  the 
several  Annual  Conferences,  and  the  decision  of  two-thirds  of 
those  present  and  voting  shall  be  final  thereon/'  On  page  12, 
line  8,  "In  all  cases  the  decision  of  the  Judicial  Council  shall  be 


520     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


final;  provided,  that  if,  on  a  constitutional  question,  there  shall 
be  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence present  and  voting,  disapproving  a  decision  of  the  Judicial 
Council,  its  construction  of  the  question  involved  shall  then  be 
sent  to  the  Annual  Conferences  for  final  approval  or  disapproval, 
as  provided  hereinbefore."  When  we  came  to  consider  these  two 
sections  together,  we  found  that  only  one  of  them  is  necessary. 
They  are  not  quite  consistent  with  each  other.  But  we  found 
a  more  radical  difficulty  than  that — namely,  we  found  it  very 
difficult  to  understand  what  Section  n  means.  We  spent  quite 
a  while  trying  to  find  a  way  to  state  that  so  as  to  show  just  what 
it  does  mean,  what  was  intended.  As  it  stands,  it  is  difficult  to 
know  whether  the  decision  of  two-thirds  of  those  present  and 
voting  refers  to  the  General  Conference  or  the  Annual  Confer- 
ence. Your  committee,  to  whom  was  referred  the  matter  of 
harmonizing  certain  sections  of  the  report  of  the  ad  interim  com- 
mittee dealing  with  the  decisions  of  the  Judicial  Council,  submit 
the  following  report :  On  page  8,  Article  V.,  Section  2,  subsec- 
tion 11,  rewrite  lines  9  to  12,  so  that  the  subsection  shall  read 
as  follows :  "To  review  the  decisions  of  the  Judicial  Council  on 
constitutional  questions ;  provided  that  no  decision  of  the  Judicial 
Council  shall  be  reversed  except  by  a  concurrent  vote  of  two- 
thirds  of  the  General  Conference,  and  three-fourths  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  several  Annual  Conferences  present  and  voting.  On 
page  12,  Article  VI.,  subsection  2,  line  8,  after  the  word  "super- 
intendents,'' introduce  a  separate  paragraph  as  subsection  3,  to 
read  as  follows :  "In  all  cases  the  decision  of  the  Judicial  Council 
shall  be  final,  except  as  provided  in  Article  V.,  Section  2,  sub- 
section 11" — the  provision  that  I  read  a  moment  ago.  This 
means  striking  out  lines  8  to  13. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  move  to  amend  by  putting  in  "two-thirds  pres- 
ent and  voting." 

D.  G.  Downey:  Why  is  that  amendment  offered? 

Edgar  Blake :  In  order  to  prevent  question. 

D.  G.  Downey :  I  wonder  if  Dr.  Blake  realizes  that  it  makes  it 
impossible  for  less  than  two-thirds.  This  matter  of  a  quorum 
present  and  voting  has  been  decided  in  one  way  from  the  House 
of  Representatives  and  United  States  Senate,  down  through,  and 
that  is  that  when  you  have  a  body  like  the  General  Conference 
in  which  a  quorum  is  fixed,  it  is  not  necessary,  indeed  it  is  wrong, 
to  put  in  any  limitation.  "Two-thirds"  of  a  General  Conference 
means,  and  can  only  mean,  two-thirds  of  the  quorum.  If  you 
have  a  quorum  present,  you  can  do  business.  Your  amendment 
is  unnecessary.  "Two-thirds  of  the  General  Conference" — that 
is,  two-thirds  of  a  quorum,  or  anything  over  a  quorum.  It  con- 
fuses you  if  you  have  less  than  a  quorum.  Suppose  anybody 
raises  a  question,  and  when  you  count  you  find  you  have  less 


Louisville  Meeting 


521 


than  a  quorum.  The  words  "present  and  voting"  are  necessary 
when  you  have  a  body  that  does  not  have  a  constitutional  quorum. 
But  when  you  have  a  quorum,  you  cannot  do  business  without 
it.  What  we  mean  to  say  is,  that  two-thirds  of  a  legally  consti- 
tuted body  can  do  this  thing.  "Present  and  voting"  is  unneces- 
sary in  regard  to  any  body  that  has  a  constitutional  quorum  pro- 
vided. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  I  think  that  leaves  untouched  a  question 
that  does  sometimes  arise — that  is,  whether  "two-thirds"  may  not 
mean  two-thirds  of  the  whole  number  of  the  body.  So  the  words 
"present  and  voting"  make  that  point  clear. 

The  committee  accepted  Dr.  Blake's  amendment;  and  the  re- 
port of  the  committee,  as  thus  amended,  was  adopted. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  have  a  report  to  present.  I  move  an  extension 
of  time. 

The  time  was  extended. 

Edgar  Blake:  This  report  has  to  do  with  the  several  matters 
referred  to  that  special  committee  of  ten.  The  committee  met 
last  evening,  and  bring  you  the  following  unanimous  recommen- 
dation. (The  report  is  here  inserted  as  it  appears  after  being 
slightly  changed  as  the  result  of  the  discussion  following  its  pre- 
sentation.) 

The  Commissioners  representing  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  in  submitting  the  proposed  Con- 
stitution for  the  reunited  Church,  make  the  following  recommendations 
to  our  respective  General  Conferences,  which  recommendations  shall  con- 
stitute a  part  of  the  agreement  for  the  reunion  of  the  two  Churches : 

1.  That  a  Joint  Commission  composed  of  fifteen  members  from  each 
of  the  two  Churches  be  created  which  shall  be  authorized  and  instructed 
to  fix  the  time  and  place  for  the  first  session  of  the  General  Conference 
of  the  reunited  Church,  and  to  make  any  other  arrangements  necessary  to 
the  meeting  of  that  body. 

The  first  session  of  the  General  Conference  shall  be  held  within  eighteen 
months  after  the  final  approval  and  adoption  of  the  proposed  Constitu- 
tion of  the  reunited  Church. 

When  the  date  has  been  fixed  by  the  proposed  Joint  Commission,  the 
bishops  shall  be  notified  of  the  same  and  shall  issue  the  official  call  for 
the  first  session  of  the  General  Conference  in  harmony  therewith. 

2.  Provided  that  the  first  session  of  the  General  Conference  shall  be 
composed  of  four  hundred  ministerial  and  lay  delegates  in  equal  numbers, 
from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  an  equal  number  from  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  chosen  in  such  manner  as  may  be 
determined  by  their  respective  General  Conferences. 

3.  Pending  the  meeting  of  the  first  General  Conference  each  Church 
shall  be  governed  by  the  rules  and  regulations  of  its  own  Discipline,  ex- 
cept as  herein  otherwise  agreed  upon. 

4.  Annual  Conferences  having  membership  in  two  or  more  Regional 
Jurisdictions  shall  be  considered  as  being  a  part  of  and  belonging  to  that 
jurisdiction  in  which  the  largest  number  of  its  members  reside;  provided 
that  this  shall  apply  only  to  the  meeting  of  the  first  General  Conference. 

We  further  recommend  that 

1.  The  General  Conference  at  its  first  session  shall  appoint  a  Commis- 


522     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


sion  made  up  of  an  equal  number  of  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  who  shall  consider 
and  report  to  the  next  ensuing  General  Conference  for  its  action  a  plan 
for  the  coordination  and  correlation  of  the  publishing  interests  of  the 
two  Churches. 

Pending  the  report  of  said  Commission  and  action  thereon  by  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  the  publishing  interests  shall  be  continued  as  at  present 
constituted  or  as  they  may  be  constituted  by  their  respective  General 
Conferences.  But  those  in  authority  over  said  publishing  interests  shall 
be  instructed  to  make  every  reasonable  effort  to  correlate  and  unify  their 
several  activities  in  so  far  as  it  may  be  possible  and  practicable  to  do  so 
by  administrative  measures.  Until  the  General  Conference  shall  have 
adopted  a  plan  of  coordination  and  consolidation,  the  dividends  of  the 
publishing  interests  of  the  two  Churches  shall  be  distributed  according 
to  the  plan  heretofore  in  use  by  the  respective  Churches. 

2.  The  General  Conference  at  its  first  session  shall  appoint  a  Com- 
mission made  up  of  an  equal  number  of  members  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  South,  who  shall  con- 
sider and  report  to  the  next  ensuing  General  Conference  for  its  action  a 
plan  for  the  reorganization,  coordination,  and  correlation  of  the  connec- 
tional  missionary,  educational,  and  benevolent  boards  and  societies  of  the 
two  Churches. 

Pending  the  report  of  said  Commission  and  action  thereon  by  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  the  several  boards  and  societies  shall  be  continued  as  at 
present  constituted  or  as  they  may  be  constituted  by  their  respective  Gen- 
eral Conferences.  But  those  in  authority  over  said  boards  and  societies 
shall  be  instructed  to  make  every  reasonable  effort  to  correlate  and  unify 
the  activities  of  those  boards  and  societies  having  similar  objectives,  in 
so  far  as  it  may  be  possible  and  practicable  to  do  so  by  administrative 
action. 

3.  The  General  Conference  at  its  first  session  shall  appoint  a  Commis- 
sion made  up  of  an  equal  number  of  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  who  shall  consider 
and  report  to  the  next  ensuing  General  Conference  for  its  action  a  plan 
or  plans  for  the  proper  safeguarding  and  control  of  the  permanent  funds 
and  properties  of  the  two  Churches,  not  otherwise  provided  for. 

Pending  the  report  of  said  Commission  and  action  thereon  by  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  said  funds  and  properties  shall  be  supervised  and  con- 
trolled as  at  present,  or  as  they  may  be  supervised  and  controlled  by  the 
action  of  their  respective  General  Conferences. 

4.  The  General  Conference  at  its  first  session  shall  appoint  a  Commis- 
sion made  up  of  an  equal  number  of  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  which  shall  be  au- 
thorized and  instructed  to  investigate  the  matter  of  Annual  Conference 
boundaries  and  their  proper  readjustment,  and  make  recommendations  to 
the  Regional  Conferences  concerning  the  same. 

Thomas  N.  Ivey,  Chairman; 
Edgar  Blake,  Secretary. 

It  was  moved  that  this  report  be  adopted. 

D.  G.  Downey :  I  think  we  ought  to  have  a  fairly  full  expla- 
nation of  all  these  important  matters.  It  seems  to  me  there  are 
many  things  in  here  which  ought  to  be  left  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence, to  its  determination  when  it  comes  together. 

Edgar  Blake  moved  that  the  report  be  considered  seriatim; 
and  this  motion  prevailed. 


Louisville  Meeting  523 

Dr.  Blake  (reading  the  first  items)  :  This  is  simply  a  recom- 
mendation to  the  two  General  Conferences  for  such  action  as 
they  may  care  to  take. 

Bishop  Cranston :  Is  this  proposed  as  a  recommendation  to  go 
to  the  first  General  Conference  that  meets,  to  be  acted  on  by  that 
General  Conference,  subject  to  the  action  of  the  Southern  Gen- 
eral Conference?  Or  is  this  a  proposition,  the  making  and  pass- 
ing of  which  is  regarded  as  a  proper  function  of  this  Joint  Com- 
mission ? 

Edgar  Blake :  It  is  a  recommendation  that  will  go  to  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  1920  for 
consideration  and  action,  if  they  care  to  take  action  thereon. 
The  same  proposition  will  go  to  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  when  that  General  Confer- 
ence meets. 

Bishop  Moore :  The  section  provides  for  the  calling  of  the 
first  General  Conference  within  twelve  months  after  this  Consti- 
tution has  been  adopted  by  the  Annual  Conferences.  That  seems 
hardly  possible.  You  have  to  elect  your  delegates.  It  takes 
twelve  months  to  do  that.  Suppose  now  your  General  Confer- 
ence should  approve  this  Constitution,  which  I  sincerely  trust  it 
will  do,  and  that  our  General  Conference  should  do  the  same 
thing.  It  is  possible  that  our  General  Conference  that  met  in 
Atlanta  will  be  called  in  extra  session,  as  that  has  been  provided 
for.  Then  this  matter  goes  to  the  Annual  Conferences.  They 
finish,  say,  in  March.  Then  the  delegates  must  be  elected.  But 
I  do  not  know — 

Edgar  Blake :  What  would  you  suggest  ? 

Bishop  Moore :  Eighteen  months. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  am  sure  the  committee  has  no  objection.  How 
is  that,  Dr.  Ivey? 

T.  N.  Ivey:  I  was  in  favor  of  making  it  just  twelve  months; 
but  I  have  been  thinking  since,  and  believe  an  extension  of  time 
would  be  wise. 

Bishop  Moore:  I  move  the  substitution  of  "eighteen  months,, 
for  "a  year." 

Edgar  Blake :  That  is  accepted. 

The  item,  with  this  change,  was  adopted. 

Bishop  Cooke  took  the  chair. 

Item  2  was  read,  and  a  motion  was  made  to  adopt  it. 

D.  G.  Downey :  Does  that  mean  that,  after  having  adopted  a 
constitution  and  the  method  for  the  election  of  delegates,  we  en- 
tirely overthrow  that  at  the  first  General  Conference,  delegates 
to  which  do  not  come  through  the  process  of  the  Constitution  ? 

Edgar  Blake :  The  provision  in  the  proposed  Constitution  is 
as  follows :  "The  General  Conference  shall  be  composed  of  not 
less  than  670  and  not  more  than  850  delegates/'  etc.   This  cannot 


524     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

go  into  operation  until  the  first  General  Conference  of  the  reor- 
ganized Church  has  met  and  acted.  We  must  make  some  pro- 
vision for  the  bringing  together  of  that  first  General  Conference 
to  take  those  actions  which  are  required. 

D.  G.  Downey :  You  are  providing  that  in  practice  the  first 
General  Conference,  which  will  have  all  the  powers  of  a  General 
Conference,  powers  of  election,  and  everything  that  a  General 
Conference  has — there  shall  be  absolute  parity  of  the  two 
Churches  represented? 

Edgar  Blake :  The  committee  is  recommending  the  suggestion, 
so  frequently  made  by  Bishop  Hamilton,  that  in  the  first  General 
Conference  which  meets  after  reorganization  the  two  Churches 
shall  be  on  a  parity. 

D.  G.  Downey :  I  think  that  Bishop  Hamilton's  proposition 
was  that  the  two  General  Conferences  should  meet  untrammeled, 
as  a  sort  of  convention,  and  the  body  should  make  its  provisions 
for  the  future — just  act  together.  But  this  provides  that  you 
have  a  first  General  Conference  with  parity  of  numbers.  The 
brethren  will  please  understand  I  am  not  arguing  for  or  against, 
I  am  only  striving  to  have  it  clear  just  what  it  means;  and  when 
that  Conference  comes  together,  the  equal  number  will  have  all 
the  power  of  a  General  Conference  to  do  anything  that  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  may  desire  to  do? 

Edgar  Blake :  That  statement  is  not  quite  accurate.  Not  power 
to  do  anything  that  the  General  Conference  may  desire  to  do, 
but  that  the  General  Conference  may  do  under  the  restrictions 
and  limitations  of  the  Constitution.  May  I  state  this  further 
fact  concerning  this  proposition,  which  came  up  in  the  committee? 
There  are  two  or  three  reasons,  I  think,  that  moved  the  members 
of  the  committee  to  make  this  recommendation.  One  was  a  de- 
sire that  in  this  first  General  Conference,  in  which  we  really  meet 
for  reorganization,  the  first  time,  so  far  as  possible  there  should 
be  a  numerical  parity  on  the  part  of  these  two  great  communions. 
I  think  it  was  felt  by  some  or  all  that  in  that  first  General  Con- 
ference, the  first  time  we  ever  come  together,  one  of  the  Churches 
has  only  about  one-third  the  members  of  the  body,  and  there 
naturally  would  be  some  hesitation  on  the  part  of  that  Church, 
some  fear  that  they  may  be  outvoted,  overridden  in  issues,  and  a 
constant  tendency  to  invoke  that  privilege  of  voting  by  Regions. 
It  may  be  desirable.  But  it  was  felt  that  if  in  this  first  General 
Conference,  the  only  one  to  which  this  provision  applies,  these 
two  bodies  could  come  together  equal  in  numbers,  that  feeling 
of  hesitation  in  large  part  would  be  dissipated;  and  instead  of 
members  of  that  body  grouping  themselves  around  certain  Re- 
gional units,  we  should  find  the  men  grouping  themselves  around 
ideas  and  ideals  and  purposes  and  desires.  Personally,  I  believe 
that  is  not  only  the  diplomatic  but  the  statesmanlike  thing  to  do. 


Louisville  Meeting 


525 


T.  N.  Ivey:  Perhaps  it  would  be  well  to  state,  just  at  this 
juncture,  that  this  part  relating  to  the  fact  that  there  will  be  a 
parity  of  numbers  in  the  first  General  Conference — this  sugges- 
tion came  from  the  side  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  It 
did  not  come,  of  course,  from  the  Southern  Methodist  Church. 
After  it  came,  we  could  do  nothing  less — as  we  saw  the  wisdom 
of  it,  as  we  thought — than  to  express  our  very  great  appreciation 
of  what  we  felt  was  a  very  magnanimous  act;  though  we  realized 
it  was  not  made  with  any  such  idea  as  that.  Of  course,  as 
Chairman  of  the  committee,  I  am  willing  to  accept  the  decision 
of  this  body  as  to  proportion.  Personally  I  am  not  contending 
for  that,  though  I  can  see  what  a  great  advantage  it  would  be 
if  we  can  go  before  our  people  with  that  proposition. 

Bishop  Moore:  It  is  12:30  o'clock,  and  we  have  this  very  im- 
portant matter  for  consideration.  I  believe  if  we  were  to  adjourn 
now  until  two  o'clock  and  let  us  think  over  what  has  just  been 
proposed,  and  talk  with  each  other,  we  can  be  refreshed  and  talk 
things  over  and  come  together  and  get  along  very  much  faster 
than  by  continuing  now.  I  move  that  we  do  now  adjourn  until 
2  :i5  p.m. 

C.  M.  Bishop :  I  would  oppose  the  motion,  on  the  ground  of 
the  necessity  of  a  little  further  explanation  of  the  report  of  the 
committee.  I  wish  I  might  be  permitted  to  make  one  or  two  re- 
marks concerning  that  paragraph,  since  I  was  a  member  of  that 
committee. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  move  as  an  amendment  that  when  we  adjourn 
it  be  to  meet  at  2  o'clock.  We  are  anxious  to  save  time.  I  be- 
lieve we  shall  do  so  if  we  meet  at  2  o'clock. 

Bishop  Moore :  I  accept  that. 

Bishop  Cooke:  The  motion  is  made  that,  after  making  an- 
nouncements, we  adjourn  to  meet  at  2  o'clock. 
Bishop  Cranston  took  the  chair. 

G.  W.  Brown :  I  move  a  committee  on  resolutions  concerning 
our  entertainment  by  this  Church. 

A  committee  of  two  from  each  Church  was  ordered. 

The  session  closed  at  12:35  p.m.  with  the  benediction  pro- 
nounced by  Dr.  Ivey. 

Afternoon  Session. 

Promptly  at  2  o'clock  Bishop  Leete  took  the  chair  and  called 
upon  Rev.  E.  Robb  Zaring,  editor  of  the  Northwestern  Christian 
Advocate,  to  conduct  the  devotional  exercises. 

The  hymn,  "I  need  thee  every  hour,"  was  sung,  after  which 
Dr.  Zaring  read  the  Scriptures  and  offered  prayer. 

The  hymn,  "Take  the  name  of  Jesus  with  you,"  was  sung. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Leete)  :  I  think  we  will  not  be  able  to 
have  the  minutes  of  the  morning  session  just  yet. 


526     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


Secretary  Harris :  The  recess  has  been  so  short  and  the  min- 
utes so  long  that  we  have  not  had  opportunity  to  complete  them. 

The  roll  was  called  and  the  following  were  present:  Bishops 
Earl  Cranston,  F.  D.  Leete,  R.  J.  Cooke,  E.  D.  Mouzon,  Collins 
Denny,  J.  M.  Moore,  James  Cannon,  Jr.  Ministers :  Edgar 
Blake,  D.  G.  Downey,  R.  E.  Jones,  A.  J.  Nast,  Frank  Neff,  C. 
B.  Spencer,  J.  W.  Van  Cleve,  C.  M.  Stuart,  J.  J.  Wallace,  W.  J. 
Young,  C.  M.  Bishop,  T.  N.  Ivey,  A.  J.  Lamar,  C.  C.  Selecman, 
J.  E.  Dickey,  E.  B.  Chappell,  P.  H.  Linn,  F.  M.  Thomas.  Lay- 
men:  G.  W.  Brown,  A.  W.  Harris,  C.  W.  Kinne,  J.  R.  Joy,  I. 
G.  Penn,  C.  A.  Pollock,  Rolla  V.  Watt,  E.  L.  Kidney,  H.  N. 
Snyder,  P.  D.  Maddin,  R.  S.  Hyer,  J.  H.  Reynolds,  R.  E.  Black- 
well,  J.  R.  Pepper,  T.  D.  Samford,  J.  G.  McGowan. 

Bishop  Mouzon  took  the  chair. 

Secretary  Harris  read  the  minutes,  which  were  approved. 

The  Chairman  stated  that  Item  2  of  the  report  of  the  Commit- 
tee on  Recommendations  to  the  General  Conference  was  under 
consideration,  and  that  Dr.  C.  M.  Bishop  was  entitled  to  the 
floor,  having  secured  it  just  before  adjournment  in  the  morning. 

C.  M.  Bishop :  I  have  very  brief  remarks  to  make  concerning 
the  item  of  the  report  presented  by  Dr.  Blake  which  provides 
that  there  shall  be  equal  numbers  representing  the  two  Churches 
in  the  first  reorganized  General  Conference.  When  the  matter 
was  proposed  last  night,  as  was  said,  very  magnanimously,  by 
representatives  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  I  raised  the 
question  as  to  the  legality  of  the  action  of  a  General  Conference 
so  constituted.  But  it  was  immediately  said  that  this  was  to  be 
a  special  provision  for  organizing  the  General  Conference.  I 
think  it  is  worth  while  to  remember  that.  We  have  as  yet  pro- 
vided no  way  for  the  assembling  of  the  first  General  Conference, 
no  way  by  which  it  can  be  constituted  in  accord  with  our  law. 
The  Regional  Conferences  will  not  be  in  existence,  and  cannot 
carry  out  their  own  functions  without  some  previous  legislation 
by  the  General  Conference,  determining  at  least  as  to  the  number 
of  their  lay  delegates,  for  instance.  That  is  one  of  the  things 
to  be  provided  for.  In  our  choosing  of  delegates,  the  organizing 
Conference  must  meet  before  the  Regional  Conferences  can  func- 
tion as  such,  or  really  be  constituted  according  to  the  law  which 
we  have  adopted.  Therefore,  it  seems  to  me  we  must  provide 
for  an  organizing  Conference,  which  will  set  the  law  of  the 
Church  functioning.  We  can  call  it  a  General  Conference  with- 
out considering  it  necessarily  the  first  of  the  General  Confer- 
ences. We  ought  to  do  that.  And  in  that  way  it  will  assume  the 
nature  of  a  convention  between  the  two  Churches  to  carry  out 
certain  instructions  previously  given ;  and  it  would  be  a  matter 
of  fairness  under  those  circumstances  that  the  two  Churches 
should  be  equally  represented.    So  it  commends  itself  to  me 


Louisville  Meeting 


527 


more  strongly  than  it  did  at  its  first  suggestion,  when  it  appeared 
to  be  on  the  face  of  it  chiefly  a  magnanimous  suggestion  from  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  I  think  we  should  be  almost  under 
necessity  to  carry  it  out  in  accord  with  this  plan. 

C.  A.  Pollock :  I  do  not  know  how  many  people  in  this  room 
have  ever  lived  in  a  Territory.  For  one,  I  have.  And  I  remem- 
ber very  distinctly  that  when  we  organized  our  State  there  had 
to  be  something  done  to  hitch  the  new  onto  the  old.  We  call  that 
in  our  law  books  a  "schedule."  If  I  may  use  that  word  as  apply- 
ing to  this  resolution,  I  would  say  that  the  same  power  which  has 
the  right  to  organize  the  General  Conference  as  we  are  providing 
in  this  Constitution  has  an  equal  authority  to  prepare  a  "sched- 
ule" or  a  plan  by  which  the  old  regime  can  be  coupled  up  with 
the  new,  and  the  new  set  in  motion.  I  would  like  to  ask  the  com- 
mittee :  I  do  not  think  that  the  body  of  men  called  together  in 
the  first  General  Conference  ought  to  have  the  same  unlimited 
power  that  is  given  to  the  members  of  a  General  Conference 
which  will  be  assembled  under  this  Constitution.  For  there  is  a 
limitation  commensurate  with  the  powers  which  we  expect  to 
give  to  this  first  General  Conference,  or  would  like  to  give  to  it. 
If  you  do  not,  they  have  general  power  to  do  anything  they  want 
to;  they  could  set  up  a  machine  of  any  kind,  before  we  get  into 
regular  action  by  the  regular  body  which  we  hope  will  be  elected 
under  the  Constitution. 

Edgar  Blake :  If  this  section  is  approved  by  the  committee  for 
recommendation  to  the  General  Conferences  of  the  two  Churches, 
we  shall  move  that  this  section  be  inserted  after  line  15  on  page 
6,  so  that  it  will  read  that  "the  General  Conference  shall  be  com- 
posed," etc.,  and  then,  "provided  that  the  first  session  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  shall  be  composed  of  four  hundred  ministerial 
and  lay  delegates  in  equal  numbers  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  chosen  in 
such  manner  as  may  be  determined  by  their  respective  General 
Conferences."  So  that  it  will  bring  this  body  absolutely  under 
the  restrictions  and  limitations  of  the  Constitution.  They  will 
not  be  able  to  do  anything  they  might  desire  to  do. 

This  item  in  the  form  just  read  by  Dr.  Blake  was  unanimously 
adopted. 

Bishop  Moore :  I  think  I  ought  to  say  this  word :  We  of  the 
Southern  Commission  consider  this  an  act  of  very  great  gener- 
osity toward  our  Church;  and  a  vote  was  taken  by  us  expressing 
this  feeling. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  move  that  the  section  just  adopted  be  inserted 
in  the  report  of  the  ad  interim  committee  on  page  6,  after  line 
15,  as  a  proviso. 

This  motion  prevailed. 


528     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

Items  3  and  4  of  the  report  were  read  and  unanimously 
adopted. 

Edgar  Blake:  That  seems  to  complete  the  recommendations 
that  have  to  do  with  the  machinery  necessary  for  starting  the 
thing  off.  Now  we  make  the  further  recommendation  embodied 
in  the  report. 

The  remaining  items  of  the  report  were  then  successively 
adopted. 

On  motion  of  Edgar  Blake,  the  report  was  adopted  as  a  whole. 

Bishop  Cranston :  This  Joint  Commission  has  been  going  along 
very  safely  and  with  confidence  under  the  leadership  of  the 
brethren  who  have  been  appointed  to  prepare  documents  for  it 
from  time  to  time.  And  we  have  depended  upon  them  as  a  sort 
of  legal  providence,  anticipating  our  needs  and  providing  against 
our  deficiencies,  so  that  perhaps  others  of  you  may  be  somewhat 
in  the  state  of  mind  in  which  I  am,  not  knowing  just  where  we 
are  and  just  how  we  are  to  have  other  people  know  what  we 
think  we  have  done.  This  morning,  when  the  discussion  was 
up  touching  the  powers  of  the  bishops,  or  rather,  certain  powers 
of  the  General  Conference  with  reference  to  the  bishops,  it  ap- 
peared to  me  that  if  the  matter  were  left  in  that  shape,  people 
who  had  not  copies  of  the  Discipline  at  home,  and  certainly  the 
ministry  of  their  Churches,  who  are  not  supposed  to  have  our 
information  at  hand,  would  think  we  had  made  sad  havoc  of 
the  whole  institution  of  the  Methodist  episcopacy — with  no  other 
information  as  to  what  is  contemplated  than  what  is  furnished  in 
the  Constitution.  In  the  nature  of  things,  a  constitution  sets  forth 
only  basic  principles  of  our  Church  government.  It  is  not  so 
much,  perhaps,  a  constructive  as  it  is  a  conservative  instrument. 
But  after  what  was  said  this  morning,  the  idea  that  any  one 
would  get  of  our  episcopacy  appeared  to  me  to  be  so  bald  that 
it  would  be  unrecognizable.  Therefore  it  seems  to  me  that  we 
ought  somewhere  and  somehow  to  set  forth  that  what  the  Com- 
mission has  been  doing  is  simply  to  make  a  form  of  constitution 
setting  forth  the  organic  law  of  the  Church;  and  that  all  the 
details  relating  to  the  matters  which  are  not  mentioned  here, 
which  have  been  from  the  beginning  recognized  in  our  books  of 
Discipline  and  in  the  practice  of  the  Church,  are  left  for  the 
consideration  and  determination  of  the  General  Conference.  I 
think  a  formal  statement  like  that  ought  to  go  with  this  document 
in  order  to  protect  ourselves  against  misunderstanding.  Now,  in 
our  practice,  the  duties  of  the  episcopacy  and  its  privileges,  as 
weli  as  other  powers,  are  matters  of  legislation  by  the  General 
Conference.  There  are  certain  functions  peculiar  to  the  epis- 
copacy which  have  existed  from  the  beginning,  and  it  is  not  nec- 
essary to  speak  of  them  to  any  Methodist.  Yet  in  reorganizing 
the  Church  and  making  changes  that  appear  to  be  somewhat  rad- 


Louisville  Meeting 


529 


ical,  or  tending  in  that  direction,  we  cannot  be  too  careful  in 
having  it  understood  just  what  essentials  we  have  retained  and 
in  what  respects  and  why  we  have  made  changes.  I  was  think- 
ing, during  the  noon  recess,  that  in  all  probability  I  shall  see 
Asbury  and  some  of  the  other  saints  before  some  of  you  do. 
And  I  would  like  to  have  some  comfort  to  administer  to  those 
dear  brethren!  I  do  not  know  just  how  much  they  know  about 
these  things.  I  often  do  suspect  that  they  are  interpreting  more 
correctly  than  we  ourselves  the  drift  of  things  and  the  whole- 
someness  or  otherwise  of  the  drift.  I  do  not  know  as  to  that. 
But  I  do  not  want  to  be  left,  when  questions  are  put  to  me  as  to 
what  these  Commissions  meant  down  here  when  they  denatured 
the  Asburian  episcopacy — well,  you  know  that  what  the  saints 
have  a  desire  to  understand  now  will  not  do  them  much  good, 
the  saints  on  this  side  ought  to  be  made  to  understand !  I  am 
glad  that  my  time  of  service  in  the  episcopacy  has  expired.  I 
do  not  covet,  the  new  task,  the  task  of  the  episcopacy  as  it  is  like- 
ly to  be  administered  under  this  new  administration.  But  you 
must  see  to  it  that  what  we  have  written  here  as  to  the  powers 
of  the  General  Conference  concerning  the  work  and  the  method 
by  which  the  bishops  shall  serve  the  Church,  that  it  it  not  to  be 
understood  to  indicate  any  more  than  it  says,  and  that  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  when  it  shall  come  together,  is  expected  to  de- 
termine how  far  the  traditional  functions  of  the  episcopacy  or 
their  privileges  are  to  be  kept,  or  its  powers  limited  by  these 
apparently  radical  departures. 

Edgar  Blake:  My  chief  concern  has  been,  not  that  we  should 
get  it  by  Brother  Asbury  and  Brother  Soule,  but  that  we  should 
get  it  by  the  General  Conference.  Of  course  there  is  likely  to 
be  some  confusion,  if  you  accept  simply  an  ex  parte  statement. 
But  I  do  not  believe  anybody  can  read  this  proposed  Constitu- 
tion and  feel  that  the  episcopacy  is  not  left  a  vital  force  still  in 
our  Church. 

F.  M.  Thomas :  I  am  not  to  discuss  this.  But  I  think  perhaps 
we  have  got  to  the  point  where  Bishop  Cranston  has  raised  some 
very  vital  points.  I  realize  this — there  is  no  use  in  discussing  it 
— that  this  present  plan  permits,  I  will  not  say  a  change  in  the 
conception  of  the  episcopacy,  but  certainly  it  provides  for  it. 
How  far,  no  one  can  tell.  It  is  hazy  in  my  mind.  If  asked  in  my 
General  Conference  what  type  of  episcopacy  this  plan  is  propos- 
ing to  adopt,  I  cannot  answer.  I  can  only  say  this,  that  the  first 
General  Conference  will  define  that  episcopacy,  and,  as  I  under- 
stand it,  it  will  then  become  a  part  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
Church. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  I  am  as  much  confused  as  Bishop  Cranston; 
but  I  am  not  at  all  affected  by  it.   I  would  like  to  know  what  be- 
comes, under  the  Regional  Conference  idea,  of  all  the  bishops 
34 


530     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


that  are  at  present  elected  and  are  bishops  of  our  respective 
Churches.  Dr.  Blake  said  they  would  naturally  fall  into  their 
Regions. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  I  believe  the  Commission 
will  agree  with  me  that  we  ought  not  to  discuss  a  matter  unless 
it  is  properly  brought  before  this  body.  And  no  motion  is  pend- 
ing. 

Rolla  V.  Watt :  I  am  asking  what  relation  to  these  Regional 
Conferences  the  present  bishops  of  our  two  Churches  will  have 
if  this  present  legislation  is  adopted. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  That  question  is  in  order. 

Edgar  Blake :  The  General  Conference  would  naturally  deter- 
mine the  matter  at  the  time  being.  I  cannot  answer  for  the  time 
being.  We  have  a  number  of  reports.  Some  brethren  must 
leave.   Have  we  not  some  vital  matters  that  must  be  acted  on? 

Dr.  Blackwell  presented  the  report  of  the  special  committee 
on  Articles  of  Faith.  General  Rules,  Standards  of  Doctrine,  and 
Name  of  the  Unified  Church,  as  follows : 

1.  We  recommend  that  the  two  coordinate  branches  of  the  original 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  represented  by  this  Joint  Commission,  to- 
gether with  any  other  bodies  of  like  faith  and  doctrine  who  may  express 

their  wish  to  join  with  us  shall  be  constituted  and  named  the    Church 

under  the  following  Constitution. 

2.  We  recommend  that  since  the  discrepancies  in  the  Articles  of  Re- 
ligion and  the  General  Rules  as  they  are  recorded  in  the  Disciplines  of 
the  respective  Churches  are  largely  a  matter  of  editing,  said  discrepancies 
be  referred  to  a  committee  of  four,  two  from  each  Commission,  with 
power  to  harmonize  the  same. 

3.  In  regard  to  what  constitutes  our  established  standards  of  doctrine, 
we  recommend  that  no  action  be  taken  at  this  time. 

R.  E.  Blackwell.  Chairman; 
D.  G.  Downey,  Secretary. 

On  motion  of  Dr.  Downey,  the  report  was  taken  up  seriatim. 
Item  i  was  read. 

R.  E.  Blackwell :  We  suggest  two  names  for  the  Commission 
itself  to  decide  on:  simply  "The  Methodist  Church,"  or  "The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church" — no  geographical  limitation.  We 
want  the  Commission  to  decide  which  of  those  two  they  prefer. 

D.  G.  Downey :  I  move  that  the  name  to  be  inserted  be  "The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church." 

Edgar  Blake :  I  move  as  a  substitute  that  the  name  of  the 
Church  be  "The  Methodist  Church." 

C.  A.  Pollock  seconded  Dr.  Blake's  motion. 

Bishop  Cooke  :  I  would  like  to  submit  the  original  name  of  the 
Church,  "The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America."  It  was 
first  "The  Methodist  Church  in  Xorth  America";  then  "The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States."  When  As- 
bury  and  Coke  made  an  address  to  the  President  at  Washington 


Louisville  Meeting 


531 


he  replied,  and  the  heading  of  his  address  is,  "To  the  Bishops 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States."  Pres- 
ident Washington  having  given  that  name,  it  was  continued.  But 
the  original  name  was  "The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
America."    However,  I  withdraw  my  suggestion. 

By  a  standing  vote  of  25  to  20,  the  name  "The  Methodist 
Church"  was  chosen.  Dr.  Blake's  amendment  being  adopted. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  move  the  approval  of  Item  1. 

Bishop  Moore :  I  would  like  that  matter  to  come  in  this  form : 
"The  name  of  the  Church  formed  by  the  union  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
and  any  other  Churches  that  may  hereafter  enter  this  body,  shall 
be  The  Methodist  Church.' " 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Would  it  not  be  better  to 
bring  that  in  after  we  have  gone  through  the  several  items  of  this 
report  ? 

P.  H.  Linn:  There  is  no  motion  except  the  motion  to  adopt 
our  report. 

Bishop  Moore :  I  think  what  I  have  to  propose  is  simply  a  sub- 
stitute for  Item  1. 

The  substitute,  as  just  stated  by  Bishop  Moore,  was  seconded. 

P.  H.  Linn :  That  brings  up  the  very  thing  I  want  to  avoid. 
I  do  not  want  to  have, in  the  Constitution  of  a  great  Church  a 
statement  of  its  origin  in  terms  of  division.  We  are  presenting 
this  not  to  go  into  the  Constitution.  I  have  no  objection  to  mov- 
ing that  the  name  "The  Methodist  Church"  shall  be  in  the  first 
article  of  the  Constitution.  We  are  wanting  this  to  go  into  our 
report  merely,  and  not  into  the  Constitution.  Then  it  will  be 
proper,  as  an  independent  matter,  to  state  that  the  name  of  the 
Church  shall  be  "The  Methodist  Church,"  as  an  article  of  the 
Constitution.  But  certainly  you  do  not  want  the  idea  of  the 
fact  that  we  have  been  separated  and, have  come  together  again 
stated  in  the  Constitution.  In  the  second  place,  we  do  feel  it  will 
be  splendidly  helpful  among  the  people  in  the  South  to  have  in 
this  report  (not  in  the  Constitution,  but  in  the  report)  the  ac- 
knowledgment that  has  been  made  repeatedly  in  speeches  in  the 
course  of  our  deliberation,  that  these  are  coordinate  branches  of 
the  original  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  And  that  was  moved 
by  one  of  the  brethren  in  the  Northern  Commission,  and  it  was 
realized  again  that  that  would  be  very  splendid  historically,  and  it 
would  be  very  helpful  among  Southern  constituencies.  I  hope 
this  paper  will  be  adopted,  and  that  then  we  will  entertain  Bishop 
Moore's  proposition  that  the  name  of  the  Church  shall  be  made 
the  first  section  of  your  Constitution. 

Bishop  Moore's  substitute  was  put  to  vote  and  lost. 

Item  1  of  the  report  was  then  adopted. 

The  second  item  was  read,  as  set  forth  above. 


532     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


R.  E.  Blackwell :  I  will  state  that  we  went  over  these,  line  by 
line,  and  found  that  there  were  some  mistakes,  evidently  of  a 
typographical  character.  We  had  no  literature  to  go  back  of 
these  to  see  which  were  the  original  words.  There  is  only  one 
point,  perhaps,  and  that  is  where  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
has  a  description  of  the  old  class  meeting.  Otherwise,  there  is 
very  slight  difference  between  them. 

Bishop  Denny :  I  think  I  can  throw  a  little  light  on  the  question 
of  the  Articles  of  Religion  that  may  be  helpful.  In  1894  the 
Baltimore  Conference  memoralized  the  General  Conference  to 
have  a  commission  to  examine  the  Articles  of  Religion  and  to 
see  what  changes  had  occurred  in  them,  and  by  what  authority. 
The  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  that  met  in  Memphis  in  1894,  appointed  such  a  Commis- 
sion. That  Commission  carefully  went  over  all  the  Disciplines  of 
the  Church  from  1784  on,  to  discover  what  changes  had  been 
made,  and  by  what  authority.  There  has  been  no  authority  of 
any  kind  for  any  change  in  the  Articles  of  Religion,  so  far  as 
the  records  of  the  Church  show,  from  1808  on.  There  have  been 
a  great  many  changes  that  have  been  due  partly  to  typographical 
errors,  and  partly  to  some  attempt  to  edit  the  Articles.  The 
fact  is,  that  in  almost  every  instance  those  changes  occurred  in 
the  intervals  of  General  Conferences.  For  instance,  there  is  a 
Discipline  of  1812,  and  one  of  1813,  and  one  of  1814;  each  one  a 
separate  edition.  There  is  a  Discipline  of  1816,  and  one  of  1817, 
and  so  on,  each  named  by  its  proper  edition.  There  is  a  Disci- 
pline of  1824,  and  one  of  1825,  one  of  1828,  and  one  of  1829. 
No  one  had  a  right  to  change  the  Articles  of  Religion  except 
by  a  vote  of  each  Annual  Conference  in  the  connection.  So  that 
the  Commission,  when  they  began  to  examine  the  question,  went 
back  to  1808,  the  last  Discipline  that  set  forth  the  Articles  of 
Religion  in  official  form.  That  Commission  could  not  go  behind 
that,  for  this  reason :  Wesley's  twenty-four  Articles,  sent  over 
in  1784,  in  unbound  sheets,  adopted  by  the  General  Conference 
of  1784,  contained  the  doctrine  of  the  "eternal  generation 
of  the  Son"  in  the  second  article.  In  1786  a  Discipline 
that  never  has  been  explained,  under  the  title  "Sunday  Services," 
published  in  England  on  the  press  of  Frys  and  Couchman,  on 
which  press  Wesley  earlier  had  always  published — Coke  did  not 
believe  in  that  doctrine,  and  now  the  question  was  by  what  au- 
thority that  disappeared  from  the  Articles  of  Religion.  There 
were  some  other  changes  between  1784  and  1786,  so  that  the 
Commission  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  felt 
bound  to  begin  at  1808.  The  Articles  of  Religion,  as  published 
in  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  have 
been  compared  line  by  line,  comma  by  comma,  with  the  official 
Articles  of  Religion,  and  the  statement  made  in  each  Discipline 


Louisville  Meeting 


533 


of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  since  1898,  "I  hereby 
certify  that  the  Articles  of  Religion  contained  in  this  edition  of 
the  Discipline  have  been  compared  by  me  with  the  standard  text, 
and  have  been  found  to  be  in  agreement  with  the  same."  So 
that  these  Articles  here,  as  published  in  our  Discipline,  have  been 
worked  over  very  carefully,  line  by  line,  Discipline  by  Discipline, 
from  1808  up  to  1894.  There  is  this  further  fact  that  needs  to 
be  considered.  If  you  look  at  our  Discipline,  paragraph  43,  you 
will  find  that  no  change  of  any  kind  can  be  made  in  the  Articles 
of  Religion  unless  each  Annual  Conference  agrees  to  it.  If  you 
will  examine  your  own  Articles  of  Religion  (and  I  have  been  a 
little  surprised  that  no  attention  has  been  paid  to  it),  you  will 
find  that  you  have  unauthorized  changes  in  your  Articles  of 
Religion  that  seem  in  some  instances  not  to  amount  to  much,  and 
yet  the  only  text  of  Scripture  referred  to,  at  the  end  of  Article 
XVI.,  on  the  Sacraments,  takes  up  that  passage  in  1  Corinthians 
which  unfortunately  is  not  found  in  the  best  texts  of  the  New 
Testament. 

P.  H.  Linn:  I  do  not  wish  to  consume  even  a  minute  of  your 
time.  But  I  feared,  when  our  report  was  made,  that  some  would 
think,  perhaps,  we  were  leaving  too  much  to  a  small  committee 
of  four.  I  have  here  marked  in  the  Disciplines  the  differences  in 
the  Articles  of  Faith.  They  are  simply  questions  of  form;  and 
I  can  absolutely  read  them  to  you,  if  you  want  them,  in  two  min- 
utes. In  the  first  Article  of  Faith,  the  word  "both"  occurs  in 
one  Discipline  and  not  in  the  other.  In  the  second  Article  of 
Faith,  "The  Son,  who  is  the  Word,  of  the  Father,"  is  our  state- 
ment, and  "The  Son,  who  was  the  Word  of  the  Father,"  is  the 
other  statement.  In  the  same  Article,  in  the  last  line,  where  it 
states  "and  to  be  a  sacrifice,  not  only  for  original  guilt,  but  also 
the  actual  sins  of  men,"  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Discipline  in- 
serts the  word  "for."  In  the  fifth  Article  of  Faith,  the  form  of 
heading  is  changed  in  that  the  word  "of"  is  omitted  in  your  Dis- 
cipline, while  our  Discipline  says,  "Of  the  Sufficiency  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  for  Salvation."  In  the  same  Article  V.  the  paragraph 
starts  with  us,  "Holy  Scripture  contains  all  things,"  whereas  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  Discipline  says,  "The  Holy  Scrip- 
tures contain  all  things."  Further  on  we  say  "the  faith,"  where 
you  say  "faith."  The  "of"  is  omitted  also  in  the  next  para- 
graph. Then  no  further  discrepancy  occurs  until  Article  XVL, 
where  you  put  in  the  expression,  "1  Cor.  xi.  29."  In  another 
case  the  word  "of"  is  omitted  from  one  Discipline  when  it  ap- 
pears in  the  other.  In  the  footnote  under  Article  XXIII.  our 
Discipline  says,  "And  therefore  it  is  expected  that  all  our  preach- 
ers and  people  will  behave  themselves  as  peaceable  and  orderly 
subjects,"  whereas  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  Discipline 
says,  "And  therefore  it  is  expected  that  all  our  preachers  and 


534     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

people,  who  may  be  under  British  or  any  other  Government,  will 
behave  themselves  as  peaceable  and  orderly  subjects/'  That  is 
the  total  distinction  between  the  two.  It  is  simply  a  matter  of 
editing.  We  felt  that  no  committee  here,  without  access  to  his- 
torical records,  could  properly  do  the  work,  but  that  a  committee 
of  four,  with  access  to  such  records,  could. 

Dr.  Wallace  pointed  out  some  minor  discrepancies. 

D.  G.  Downey :  It  is  a  matter  of  editing,  and  it  ought  to  go  to 
some  competent  committee  to  sit  down  with  the  sources. 

Bishop  Denny :  You  will  find  all  the  data  in  the  Appendix  of 
the  Journal  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  South,  for  the  year  1898. 

The  motion  pending  to  adopt  Item  2  prevailed. 

Item  3  was  read  and  adopted. 

Bishop  Cooke :  I  think  this  is  a  wise  action.  At  the  same  time, 
I  would  like  it  to  be  distinctly  understood  among  us  that  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  Church  regards  these  "established  standards  of 
doctrine"  as  much  as  it  does  the  Articles  of  Religion.  But  what 
the  standards  are,  no  one  yet  has  been  able  to  determine.  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  our  Church,  and  the 
Church  in  England  and  the  Australian  Church  and  the  Japan 
Church  are  all  different.  But  these  things  which  we  know  noth- 
ing about  are  guarded  by  the  Constitution  with  the  same  strict- 
ness as  the  Articles  of  Religion. 

The  report  as  a  whole  was  adopted. 

P.  H.  Linn :  The  committee  to  whom  you  referred  the  question 
of  the  Judicial  Council  is  ready  to  make  its  report.  Because  of 
the  great  lack  of  time,  we  have  not  been  able  to  write  this  with- 
out interlineation,  and  I  shall  have  to  read  it  deliberately :  On 
page  11,  beginning  with  line  26,  Section  6,  subsection  1,  we  rec- 
ommend that  the  section  shall  be  amended  so  as  to  read:  "The 
Judicial  Council  shall  have  full  power  to  review,  upon  appeal  on 
constitutional  grounds,  the  acts  of  the  General  Conference,  the 
Associate  General  Conferences,  the  Regional  Conferences,  and 
the  Annual  Conferences,  and  to  hear  and  determine  all  other  ap- 
peals and  matters  coming  to  it  in  course  of  lawful  procedure; 
provided,  that  no  appeal  by  any  Conference  shall  be  entertained 
unless  the  same  has  been  taken  by  at  least  one-fifth  of  the  said 
Conference  present  and  voting.  The  Judicial  Council  shall  have 
access  to  all  records  and  documents  which  it  may  call  for  or 
which  may  be  transmitted  to  it  from  any  such  Conference."  We 
have  a  certain  slight  change  in  subsection  2.  The  one  change 
suggested  is  the  insertion  after  the  expression,  "said  body,"  in 
line  7,  of  the  words  "present  and  voting,"  so  that  the  line  shall 
read,  "When  such  action  is  brought  before  it  by  appeal  by  one- 
fifth  of  the  members  of  said  body  present  and  voting,  or  by  the 
general  superintendents."   The  third  change  suggested  is  on  page 


Louisville  Meeting 


535 


13,  lines  7  and  8.  Change  so  that  beginning  with  line  6  it  will 
read,  "Vacancies  shall  be  filled  by  the  Judicial  Council  from  the 
same  order,  lay  or  ministerial,  and  from  the  same  jurisdiction 
in  which  the  vacancy  occurs"  (that  is  for  the  purpose  of  explain- 
ing the  orders ;  because  the  matter  was  brought  up  as  to  what  it 
would  mean  without  qualification)  "until  the  next  meeting  of  the 
General  Conference,  which  may  then  fill  the  vacancy  for  the  re- 
mainder of  said  term." 

Edgar  Blake:  The  word  "jurisdiction"  was  written  in  in  the 
section  just  read,  when  it  was  proposed  to  make  up  the  member- 
ship of  the  Judicial  Council  by  Regional  Jurisdictions.  As  I 
recall,  it  was  proposed  to  have  the  members  from  each  Regional 
Jurisdiction.  Now  we  are  proposing  to  select  members  without 
regard  to  regional  residence. 

P.  H.  Linn :  Then  we  propose  it  thus,  "Vacancies  shall  be 
filled,"  etc.,  without  the  word  "jurisdiction." 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  I  would  move  a  slight  amendment  to  that 
report  by  placing  at  the  end  of  the  paragraph  on  the  top  of  page 
12,  immediately  following  line  4,  where  it  says,  "unless  the  same 
has  been  taken  by  at  least  one-fifth  of  the  said  Conference  pres- 
ent and  voting,"  the  additional  words,  "or  has  been  signed  by 
one-fifth  of  its  members."  It  might  be  possible  sometime  that 
if  anything  were  done  by  which  an  individual  thought  he  was  in- 
jured or  if  one-fifth  of  the  members  of  the  Conference  felt  they 
were  subjects  of  injustice  and  it  were  near  the  end  of  the  Con- 
ference session,  they  might  be  slow  sometimes  about  taking  an 
appeal  and  would  lose  their  right;  it  should  require  one-fifth  of 
them  to  sign  an  appeal.  It  would  be  more  difficult  than  the  other 
way,  but  it  would  still  be  possible. 

P.  H.  Linn :  That  matter  was  before  our  committee,  and  by 
a  vote  of  three  to  one  it  was  thought  best  not  to  include  it.  We 
thought  that  if  any  ruling  did  not  attract  the  attention  of  one- 
fifth  of  the  Conference  it  ought  not  to  become  a  subject  of  sub- 
sequent agitation  which  would  result  in  the  circulation  of  a  peti- 
tion to  overthrow  the  action  of  the  Conference.  We  understood 
that  this  morning  you  ordered  subsection  3,  at  line  8,  and  so  we 
made  no  further  report  on  it. 

The  Committee  also  proposed  on  page  12  to  strike  out  lines 
9  to  13,  inclusive,  and  add  the  following:  "except  as  provided  in 
Article  V.,  Section  2,  subsection  11."  They  recommended  fur- 
ther, on  page  11,  line  6,  to  add  the  following:  "except  that  seven 
members  of  the  first  Judicial  Council  shall  be  elected  for  four 
years,  and  their  successors  thereafter  for  eight  years."  Also, 
on  page  13,  line  8,  strike  out  "balance"  and  insert  "remainder." 

The  report  as  a  whole  was  adopted. 

Bishop  Moore :  I  move  that  the  first  article  in  the  Constitution 


53^     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


be,  'The  name  of  the  Church  hereinafter  constituted  shall  be 
The  Methodist  Church." 

This  motion  was  seconded  and  prevailed. 

C.  C.  Selecman  presented  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Pre- 
amble, as  follows :  "To  the  glory  of  God  and  for  the  advance- 
ment of  his  kingdom  among  men,  we,  the  ministers  and  laymen 
of  the  Methodist  Church,  in  accordance  with  the  orderly  methods 
of  constitutional  legislation,  do  hereby  ordain  and  set  forth  this 
Constitution." 

D.  G.  Downey :  Unless  there  is  some  reason  for  the  word  "lay- 
men" I  wonder  if  it  would  not  be  better  to  say  "members." 

Bishop  Moore :  I  suggest  that  it  would  be  better  to  say  "lay 
members"  rather  than  "laymen." 

Unanimous  consent  was  given  to  that  change. 

Edgar  Blake :  It  seems  to  me  the  suggestion  made  by  Dr. 
Downey  of  the  word  "members"  is  a  better  expression  than  either 
of  the  others. 

It  had  already  been  voted  to  adopt  the  preamble,  as  read ;  but 
after  the  expressions  of  opinion  just  made,  the  word  "members" 
was  substituted  for  "laymen." 

Bishop  Denny :  One  question  for  information.  There  is  not 
a  word  said  about  our  Lord,  and  his  name  is  not  mentioned  in 
the  preamble.  The  preamble  could  be  adopted  by  Unitarians  as 
well  as  by  Methodists.  I  would  like  to  ask  whether  it  was  the 
intention  of  the  committee  to  omit  all  reference  to  our  Lord. 

F.  M.  Thomas :  I  move  to  insert  the  words,  "To  the  glory  of 
God,  and  for  the  advancement  of  the  kingdom  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ." 

Edgar  Blake:  It  seems  to  me  hardly  necessary  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  our  Articles  of  Religion  cover  that  point. 

F.  M.  Thomas :  I  think  that  theologically,  of  course,  the  world 
is  orienting  itself  toward  God.  But  we  orient  ourselves  toward 
God  in  Jesus  Christ. 

D.  G.  Downey :  We  are  Trinitarians.  Jesus  Christ  is  included 
in  God.    It  seems  to  me  that  is  sufficient. 

Bishop  Moore :  I  rather  sympathize  with  Bishop  Denny's  sug- 
gestion.   I  would  like  to  have  the  name  of  our  Lord  in  there. 

F.  M.  Thomas:  I  so  move. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  You  are  proposing,  "To  the 
glory  of  God,  and  for  the  advancement  of  the  kingdom  of  our 
Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  among  men." 

A.  W.  Harris :  In  my  opinion,  you  will  do  best  to  follow  the 
language  as  you  now  have  it,  and  add,  "In  the  name  of  the  Fa- 
ther, the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Bishop  Cooke :  There  is  no  "kingdom  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ"  in  the  New  Testament  nor  in  any  other  early  Chris- 


Louisville  Meeting 


537 


tian  document.  It  is  the  "kingdom  of  God,"  the  "kingdom  of 
heaven." 

F.  M.  Thomas :  I  will  accept  Dr.  Harris's  suggestion  in  place 
of  mine. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  How  will  it  read  then? 

A.  W.  Harris :  As  it  now  reads,  with  the  addition  of  "In  the 
name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Edgar  Blake :  In  the  Articles  of  Religion  the  form  is,  "The 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  preposition  is  omit- 
ted. 

The  amendment  was  adopted,  and  then  the  preamble,  as 
amended,  was  adopted  so  as  to  read  as  follows :  "To  the  glory 
of  God  and  for  the  advancement  of  his  kingdom  among  men, 
we,  the  ministers  and  members  of  the  Methodist  Church,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  orderly  methods  of  constitutional  legislation, 
do  hereby  ordain  and  set  forth  this  Constitution,  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost." 

C.  C.  Selecman  read  a  proposed  letter  of  transmittal  to  the 
General  Conferences,  as  follows: 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  in  the  year  1914,  and  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  the  year  1916,  by  their  General  Confer- 
ences approved  as  containing  the  basic  principle  for  unification  of  these 
Churches  the  tentative  plan  prepared  at  Chattanooga  by  the  Joint  Com- 
mission on  Federation.  Each  General  Conference  appointed  twenty-five 
Commissioners  and  committed  to  those  Commissioners  the  duty  of  elab- 
orating and  perfecting  this  tentative  plan  for  unification  by  reorganiza- 
tion. The  Commissioners  thus  appointed  and  instructed  do  now  report 
that  the  duty  assigned  to  them  has  been  discharged.  The  Commissioners 
have  labored  diligently  and  they  have  not  failed  to  give  exhaustive  study 
to  the  great  interests  involved,  striving  always  to  observe  faithfully  the 
instructions  placed  upon  them.  Many  measures  and  suggestions  have 
been  considered.  Of  these,  such  as  seemed  best  to  meet  the  ends  of  the 
great  purpose  for  which  the  Commissions  were  created  are  herein  of- 
fered. Therefore  the  Commissioners  do  herewith  transmit  to  the  Gen- 
eral Conferences  for  consideration  and  final  determination  the  accom- 
panying draft  of  a  constitution  for  a  unified  Church.  And  this  the  Com- 
mission do  in  the  devout  hope  that  their  work  may  receive  the  godly  ap- 
proval of  the  Churches,  and  that  it  may  serve  as  the  providential  means 
of  bringing  American  Methodism  into  one  united  Church.  And  for  this 
consummation  we  do  earnestly  pray. 

G.  W.  Brown :  I  move  that  this  whole  transmittal  be  adopted. 
Bishop  Denny:  I  shall  have  to  vote  against  that.    I  desire 

to  make  a  statement  in  a  few  words  so  as  to  avoid  a  necessity 
of  explanation  hereafter.  I  never  like  to  take  a  position  that  I 
have  to  explain.  Such  a  position  is  always  a  weakness.  I  do 
not  enjoy  any  added  weakness.  I  am  not  in  favor  of  this  plan, 
and  cannot  support  it.  I  do  not  wish  therefore  to  give  my  voice 
and  my  vote  to  a  transmission  which  would  carry  with  the  trans- 
mission the  implication  that  I  favor  the  principles  set  forth  in 


538     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

the  report.  And  so  I  wish  my  name  recorded  in  the  negative, 
for  the  reasons  that  I  have  given. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  would  like  to  have  that  paper  read  again. 
I  am  just  a  little  surprised  at  the  way  in  which  it  is  worded. 

The  paper  was  read  again. 

Bishop  Cannon:  There  is  one  sentence  there  which,  it  seems 
to  me,  is  not  necessary.  It  begins  with  the  word  "Many."  It 
seems  to  me  it  would  be  better  to  omit  that  sentence,  and  to  put 
something  like  the  statement  which  the  ad  interim  committee  used, 
that  we  transmit  the  paper  to  the  General  Conferences  with  the 
statement  that  it  represents  our  best  judgment  at  this  time,  and 
the  best  solution  of  the  matters  referred  to  us — something  of 
that  kind.  I  would  not  be  interpreted  as  meaning  that  I  do  not 
pray  that  this  plan  upon  which  we  have  worked  so  long  may 
receive  the  approval  of  the  Churches.  I  do.  But  I  would  prefer 
that  a  form  of  statement  be  made  here  which  would  not  commit 
anybody  to  anything  except  that  in  his  judgment  this  was  the 
best  solution  which  we  could  present  to  the  General  Confer- 
ences of  the  problems  which  have  confronted  us.  I  do  not  know 
that  anybody  here  will  hesitate  to  vote  for  this  because  of  that 
latter  part.  Some  brethren  who  do  not  favor  some  things  in 
this  plan  might  agree  to  vote  to  transmit  the  plan  as  the  best  plan 
we  could  present,  and  yet  might  hesitate  to  go  as  far  as  the  lat- 
ter part  of  that  statement.  Personally  I  can  vote  for  that.  But 
if  there  are  any  here  who  would  prefer  a  little  different  form 
of  statement  so  that  they  might  vote  to  transmit  it  without  pray- 
ing that  it  might  be  adopted,  when  they  really  do  not  favor  some 
parts  of  it,  I  think  it  should  be  changed. 

J.  E.  Dickey :  Has  this  plan  been  adopted  by  the  Commission 
yet?  Would  it  not  be  better  to  adopt  something  before  you  for- 
mulate a  letter  by  which  you  transmit  it? 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  I  would  like  to  say  a  word  or  two  upon  this 
particular  matter  before  us.  I  have  the  conviction,  which  may 
be  unreasoning  and  born  of  my  inherent  dullness,  that  the  letter 
that  goes  up  to  the  General  Conferences  of  the  Churches  ought 
to  go  from  their  respective  Commissions.  We  ought  to  form  our 
presentation  to  our  General  Conference,  and  you  ought  to  form 
yours.  If  necessary,  I  would  like  at  the  proper  time  to  make  a 
motion  to  that  effect. 

G.  W.  Brown :  It  is  my  opinion  that  the  reports  from  the  in- 
dividual Commissions  to  their  respective  General  Conferences 
might  be  all  right;  but  I  also  think  that  this  Joint  Commission 
should  take  action,  because  I  believe  it  will  have  a  more  weighty 
influence  with  each  particular  Conference  than  if  we  are  divided. 
Therefore  I  shall  vote  against  the  motion  just  made. 

Bishop  Leete :  It  seems  to  me  a  very  strong  point  has  been 
raised  here  as  against  adoption  by  the  two  Commissions  of  this 


Louisville  Meeting 


539 


matter  before  a  presentation  is  prepared.  It  does  seem  to  me  that 
is  a  germane  conception,  and  that  there  ought  to  be  some  adop- 
tion beforehand.  I  would  prefer  not  to  say  anything  more  if  it 
does  not  become  necessary  to  do  so.  But  I  think  what  we  ought 
to  do  now  is  to  see  whether  this  can  be  adopted. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  think  Bishop  Leete's  point  is  worth  consider- 
ing. I  think  we  have  practically  completed  the  consideration  of 
this  document,  unless  there  are  other  amendments  to  be  consid- 
ered. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  What  will  you  do  with  the 
report  of  this  committee  presenting  the  letter  of  transmittal? 

Edgar  Blake:  It  seems  to  me  action  on  that  ought  to  be  de- 
ferred until  we  have  perfected  this  document.  And  when  we 
have  considered  all  the  amendments,  then,  I  think,  there  are  those 
who  will  be  ready  to  offer  the  motion  contemplated  by  Dr.  Dickey 
and  Bishop  Leete.  I  move  that  action  on  the  letter  of  transmittal 
be  deferred  until  consideration  by  each  Commission  of  the  docu- 
ment has  been  had. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Common  consent  is  given. 

J.  H.  Reynolds :  If  that  is  true,  I  desire  to  introduce  an  amend- 
ment on  page  2,  Section  2  (a).  Let  the  section  stand  as  it  is, 
and  add  the  following,  so  that  the  whole  will  read,  beginning 
page  2,  line  16,  as  follows : 

(a)  Each  Regional  Conference  for  white  membership  in  the  United 
States  shall  be  composed  of  the  ministerial  and  lay  delegates  elected  to 
the  General  Conference  by  the  Annual  Conferences  within  the  territory 
of  the  said  Regional  Conference.  Provided  [this  is  the  addition]  that  any 
Regional  Conference  for  white  membership  in  the  United  States  by  a 
two-thirds  vote  may  establish  a  membership  for  said  Regional  Confer- 
ence different  in  number  and  personnel  from  its  membership  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  provided  that  no  Regional  Conference  shall  have  fewer 
than  one  hundred  members. 

If  I  can  get  a  secoud,  I  should  be  glad  to  make  a  few  observa- 
tions. 

This  amendment  was  seconded. 

J.  H.  Reynolds :  In  the  first  place,  it  allows  every  Regional 
Conference,  if  it  desires,  to  retain  the  suggestion  in  the  first  part 
of  the  section,  if  it  were  adopted;  that  is  to  say,  to  make  the 
membership  of  the  General  Conference  the  membership  of  the 
Regional  Conferences.  So  it  allows,  therefore,  every  Region  to 
retain  that  membership  if  it  desires.  In  the  second  place,  it  allows 
a  liberty  of  action  on  the  part  of  the  Regional  Conference  if  it 
wishes  to  establish  a  different  membership  in  number  and  person- 
nel from  its  membership  in  the  General  Conference.  A  region 
might  conceivably  want  to  have  a  Regional  Conference  of  three  or 
four  hundred  members,  much  more  representative  of  its  various 
interests.  If  it  desires  to  do  so,  what  harm  will  come  to  the  Church 


540     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


by  permitting  it  to  do  so?  Its  functions  will  not  be  different. 
Its  powers  will  not  be  increased.  It  will  be  merely  a  change  of 
its  membership,  in  keeping  with  the  wishes  of  the  people  of  the 
jurisdiction.  It  therefore  increases  the  latitude.  In  the  next 
place,  it  gives  an  opportunity  for  experiment.  All  of  us  realize 
that  the  Regional  Conference  is  more  or  less  an  experiment.  It 
will  give  those  Regions  that  desire  to  have  the  membership  of 
the  Regional  Conference  members  of  the  General  Conference 
an  opportunity  to  experiment  with  that  kind  of  a  Regional  Con- 
ference. It  will  give  the  Regions  that  desire  a  larger  Regional 
Conference,  or  a  Regional  Conference  system  of  different  mem- 
bers from  those  of  the  General  Conference,  an  opportunity  to 
experiment  with  that  kind  of  a  Regional  Conference.  We  can 
therefore  be  carrying  on  one,  two,  or  three  types  of  Regional 
Conferences  if  we  wish.  We  will  not  change  their  powers,  as  I 
have  indicated.  It  has  been  suggested  that  if  we  do  permit  this, 
we  ought  to  have  the  General  Conference  determine  the  member- 
ship of  the  Regional  Conferences — that  is,  determine  the  number, 
so  many  members  of  the  Regional  Conference  for  so  many  mem- 
bers of  the  Church  in  that  territory.  As  I  see  it,  there  is  no 
occasion  for  that.  We  are  permitting  the  Colored  Regional  Con- 
ference largely  to  determine  its  own  personnel  and  its  member- 
ship. They  can  change  the  composition  of  the  members  of  the 
Regional  Conference.  We  are  also  allowing  the  foreign  Regional 
Conferences  to  do  the  same  thing,  subject  to  review  by  the  Gener- 
al Conference.  Surely  there  is  no  risk  in  allowing  the  white  Re- 
gional Conferences,  with  a  constituency  with  long  history  in  self- 
government,  to  have  the  power  of  determining  the  personnel  of 
their  Regional  Conference.  I  think,  therefore,  that  you  will  in- 
crease very  materially  the  opportunity  of  making  your  Regional 
Conferences  an  efficient  agency  in  the  Church  if  you  accord  that 
privilege.  You  do  not  embarrass  any  Region.  You  do  not  com- 
pel any  Region.  You  simply  widen  the  opportunities  of  a  Region. 
I  therefore  move  this  amendment. 

P.  H.  Linn :  I  am  in  hearty  sympathy  with  the  purpose  of 
Brother  Reynolds ;  but  I  do  not  think  he  furthers  it  by  the  form 
of  statement  in  his  paper.  After  I  have  stated  my  reasons  for 
that,  I  am  going  to  propose  a  different  wording  as  a  substitute 
for  his  motion.  I  can  see  a  decided  advantage  in  the  testing  out 
of  the  efficiency  of  the  Regional  Conferences,  in  the  possibility 
of  having  a  larger  Conference  than  one  hundred  in  number  But 
it  is  a  patent  fact  under  your  plan  here  that  the  Regional  Con- 
ference will  have  to  meet  at  the  same  time  as  the  General  Confer- 
ence meeting,  because  of  the  matter  of  bishops.  If  that  be  true,  a 
different  personnel  in  your  Regional  Conference  would  make  it 
impossible  to  have  in  your  Regional  Conference  the  one  hundred 
men  or  more  that  are  elected  to  the  General  Conference  of  the 


Louisville  Meeting 


54i 


Church,  because  the  meeting  would  be  at  the  same  time.  And 
so  I  am  going  to  propose  as  a  substitute  these  words,  under  Sec- 
tion 2,  page  2,  "For  the  purpose  of  electing  general  superintend- 
ents, each  Regional  Conference  for  white  membership, "  etc. ; 
adding :  "Provided  that,  for  the  purpose  of  dealing  with  matters 
distinctly  Regional,  the  Annual  Conferences  within  the  territory 
of  any  Regional  Jurisdiction  within  the  United  States  may  de- 
termine the  membership  of  its  Regional  Conference,  and  the 
time  and  place  of  its  meeting."  That  would  leave  the  provision 
here  exactly  as  it  is  in  regard  to  the  one  necessary  activity  of 
that  Conference,  the  nomination  or  election  of  general  superin- 
tendents. 

Rolla  V.  Watt:  What  about  the  amendment  of  the  Constitu- 
tion? 

P.  H.  Linn :  That  is  not  a  matter  for  the  Regional  Conferences. 
This  would  simply  give  permission  to  any  Conference,  that 
wished  to  try  the  matter  of  having  a  session  of  the  Regional  Con- 
ference apart  from  the  meeting  at  the  seat  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, to  constitute  in  a  different  way  and  to  fix  the  time  and 
place  of  meeting  for  dealing  with  matters  distinctively  Regional. 
The  Annual  Conferences  "may,"  not  "shall."  They  would  do 
it  by  vote.  It  would  be  a  matter  for  the  several  Annual  Confer- 
ences.   It  is  simply  a  permission  to  do  this. 

D.  G.  Downey:  It  is  well  known  that  the  whole  matter  of 
Regional  Conferences,  the  necessity  for  them,  has  been  quite  a 
strain  upon  some.  There  are  a  good  many  of  us  who  are  quite 
hesitant  and  doubtful  in  regard  to  the  outcome  and  the  out-work- 
ing of  Regional  Conferences.  It  took  us  a  good  while  to  get  to 
the  point  where  we  were  willing  to  accept  them.  When  the  sug- 
gestion came  from  a  member  of  the  Southern  Commission  at 
Traverse  City  that  the  Regional  Conference  should  consist  of  the 
delegates  to  the  General  Conference,  we  saw  a  light,  and  we  all 
thought  it  was  an  exceedingly  happy  solution.  I  believe  still  that 
it  is  the  best  solution  of  the  Regional  Conference  that  we  will 
be  able  to  arrive  at.  I  believe  it  will  give  us  an  opportunity  to 
try  out  the  Regional  Conference  under  rather  favorable  circum- 
stances. It  will  not  create  the  prejudice  among  our  people  that 
a  larger  Regional  Conference,  meeting  specifically  at  other  times 
and  for  other  duties,  would  create.  Of  course  there  is  nothing 
in  the  Constitution  to  prevent  the  one  hundred  from  meeting  at 
any  time  in  the  interim  of  General  Conferences.  But  I  do  hope 
that  we  will  not  attempt  now  to  tamper  with  the  plan  that  has 
been  thus  far  tentatively  agreed  upon,  and  throw  into  the  minds 
of  some  of  the  Commissioners  a  good  deal  of  dissatisfaction  and  a 
good  deal  of  hesitancy.  We  are  going  to  have  difficulty  enough,  I 
fancy,  to  get  majorities  to  adopt  this  just  as  it  is  here.  But  we 
will  have  more  difficulties  if  you  carry  this  amendment.   We  will 


542     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

have  exceedingly  great  difficulties  if  you  carry  the  amendment, 
and  we  have  to  take  it  out  to  the  Church.  I  do  earnestly  hope 
that  in  the  light  of  all  the  discussion  we  have  had  and  all  the 
concessions  that  have  been  made  back  and  forth,  on  one  side 
and  the  other,  we  will  be  willing  to  let  the  present  provision  for 
these  white  Regional  Conferences  remain,  and  let  us  try  them 
out  as  they  are. 

Bishop  Denny :  Perhaps  there  are  one  or  two  points  that  may 
not  have  occurred  to  the  brethren  in  connection  with  the  Re- 
gional Conference.  It  is  an  ex  officio  body,  as  it  stands  now. 
Few  ex  officio  bodies  have  ever  been  efficient.  The  Committee 
on  Episcopacy  in  a  General  Conference  has  in  its  hands  the  pas- 
sage of  die  character  of  bishops,  and  when  they  pass  the  char- 
acter of  the  bishops  that  is  final.  With  us  (I  have  not  taken 
occasion  to  look  into  your  own  practice)  the  Committee  on  Epis- 
copacy fixes  the  allowance  a  bishop  is  to  receive.  There  is  no 
need  of  that  in  the  Regional  Conference.  This  Regional  Confer- 
ence for  which  we  have  provided  in  this  paper  will  not  have  the 
dignity  of  the  Committee  on  Episcopacy  at  a  General  Confer- 
ence. It  is  an  ex  officio  body.  It  will  amount  to  nothing  in  the 
world  except  the  meeting  of  a  delegation.  It  does  not  constitute 
in  reality  a  body  to  which  a  man  would  feel  that  he  could  go 
with  any  prospect  of  such  service  as  the  time  called  for  would 
demand.  Further,  there  are  forty-nine  Constitutions  in  this 
country.  Each  State  has  its  own,  and  the  Federal  government 
has  its  own.  There  is  not  a  State  in  the  Union — take  Rhode 
Island  and  Delaware,  small  in  extent,  or  Nevada,  small  in  popu- 
lation— that  would  be  willing  to  commit  its  interests  to  its  Con- 
gressmen and  Senators  in  Washington.  The  whole  internal  af- 
fairs of  a  State  would  dwindle  and  amount  to  nothing  practically 
if  any  State  should  suggest  that  its  State  legislature  should  meet 
at  the  time  and  place  where  Congress  met,  and  should  consist 
of  its  members  of  Congress,  Senate  and  House.  The  larger 
would  swallow  up  the  smaller.  It  is  making  really  no  provision 
for  an  essential  Regional  Conference.  I  am  sorry  that  this  was 
not  brought  up  earlier.  It  has  been  in  the  minds  of  some  of  our 
delegates  since  we  met,  and  long  before  the  meeting.  In  1808, 
when  the  plan  for  a  delegated  General  Conference  was  before 
the  body,  at  first  it  failed,  and  the  members  from  New  England 
prepared  to  leave  the  seat  of  the  Conference,  as  did  others.  The 
brethren  were  so  much  affected  that  there  was  a  good  deal  of 
crying.  Methodist  preachers  have  been  good  criers !  They  cried 
in  Baltimore  in  1808.  And  the  delegated  General  Conference 
was  established  solely  because  Joshua  Soule  defeated  Jesse  Lee, 
by  proposing  the  scheme  that  the  Conference  make  its  delegates 
by  choice  or  by  seniority.  Inasmuch  as  Jesse  Lee  was  the  great 
advocate  for  Conference  rights,  he  was  overturned.    This  is  to 


Louisville  Meeting 


543 


give  any  delegation  the  liberty  to  say  whether  it  prefers  to  have 
its  delegates  to  the  General  Conference  identical  with  its  dele- 
gates to  the  Regional  Conference.  I  think  the  paper  would  gain 
vastly  in  efficiency  and  in  the  result  that  the  study  of  it  would 
make  if  this  resolution  were  passed. 

J.  H.  Reynolds :  I  would  like  to  make  one  or  two  observations 
in  reply  to  what  has  been  said.  Take  the  question  raised  by  Dr. 
Linn,  the  matter  of  electing  bishops.  He  says  it  is  apparent  that 
under  the  plan  we  have  agreed  upon  the  Regional  Conference 
must  meet  at  the  same  time — he  may  have  added  "the  same 
place" — as  the  General  Conference,  in  order  to  elect  bishops.  I 
will  not  say  that  this  is  not  necessary.  I  do  not  think  anybody 
can  assert  that  it  will  prove  to  be  necessary.  In  the  first  place, 
it  is  not  at  all  impossible  that  we  may  work  out  some  plan  where- 
by a  certain  number  of  bishops  will  be  assigned  to  regular  juris- 
dictions, and  that  the  General  Conference  will  know  in  advance 
as  to  whether  or  not  there  will  be  a  vacancy  from  that  Region. 
If,  however,  new  bishops  should  be  created  at  the  General  Con- 
ference beyond  those  formerly  assigned  to  the  Region,  and  there- 
fore necessitate  a  special  meeting  of  the  Regional  Conference, 
any  Region  that  proposed  to  take  advantage  of  the  liberty  ac- 
corded under  this  would  face  the  possibility  of  having  to  go  to 
the  expense  of  being  called  together  by  telegram,  and  otherwise, 
during  the  session  of  the  General  Conference.  It  would  be  rath- 
er a  restrictive  factor  against  taking  advantage  of  the  liberty 
under  this  proposition.  But  it  would  be  up  to  that  Region  that 
did  take  advantage  of  it  to  take  care  of  that  matter.  Again, 
it  has  been  suggested  that  at  Traverse  City  we  adopted  this  plan 
that  is  now  in  the  proposed  Constitution,  as  suggested  by  one 
of  the  members  from  the  Southern  Commission.  That  is  quite 
true,  and  I  have  no  disposition  in  the  world  to  introduce  any  ele- 
ment that  would  create  friction  at  this  time  or  any  other.  But 
I  am  not  only  going  to  vote  to  transmit  this  document,  whether 
this  is  in  it  or  not,  but  I  am  going  to  support  it  in  every  way  I 
can,  to  get  it  adopted.  But  for  the  life  of  me  I  cannot  see  how 
putting  in  this  provision  of  according  such  liberty  to  the  Regional 
Conference  in  any  wise  disturbs  any  understanding  that  may 
have  been  agreed  upon  between  us  with  respect  to  the  provision 
as  it  stands.  I  cannot  understand,  for  instance,  why  Region  3 
in  the  territory  where  I  hope  to  reside  would  be  at  all  concerned 
with  what  Region  1  would  adopt.  That  is  their  business.  And 
it  in  no  wise  disturbs  or  affects  the  Region  in  which  I  reside. 
Neither  can  I  see  how  it  would  disturb  a  Region  anywhere  else 
if  the  Region  I  reside  in  should  see  fit  to  take  advantage  of  the 
liberty  accorded  here.  It  may  be  said  that  some  other  authority 
should  determine  the  number.  I  think  it  is  quite  the  proper 
thing  that  the  Region  itself  should  determine,  and  also  a  safe 


544     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

thing.  Dr.  Linn's  proposition  makes  it  necessary  to  continue  in- 
definitely, as  long  as  this  provision  stands,  the  membership  in  the 
General  Conference  from  any  Region  as  the  electoral  college  from 
that  Region.  If  that  fact  continues  indefinitely  in  our  Constitu- 
tion, it  is  going  to  have  the  effect  of  making  that  General  Con- 
ference in  a  very  short  time  a  most  unwieldy  body.  We  are 
going  to  have  in  the  course  of  no  long  time  ten  or  twelve  mil- 
lion members  in  this  body.  That  will  necessitate  multiplying 
your  Regional  Conferences;  and  with  the  constitutional  require- 
ment of  a  minimum  of  ioo?  it  would  make  the  General  Confer- 
ence an  unwieldy  body.  I  insist,  therefore,  that  this  gives  more 
flexibility,  injures  nobody,  disturbs  no  existing  interest;  and  I 
think  it  is  a  better  plan  than  to  leave  it  to  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences ;  because  the  Regional  Conference,  by  a  two-thirds  vote, 
represents  the  people  of  the  Region  quite  well,  and  you  would 
have  difficulty  in  having  some  kind  of  understanding  among  all 
the  Annual  Conferences  voting  on  the  question.  This  gives  the 
Regional  Conference  the  right  to  constitute  a  different  member- 
ship from  the  membership  of  the  General  Conference,  a  different 
personnel.  It  is  not  changing  the  functions  of  the  Regional  Con- 
ferences at  all.  The  question  of  functions  is  dealt  with  else- 
where. This  is  merely  dealing  with  the  personnel.  It  increases 
the  number,  but  not  the  powers. 

D.  G.  Downey :  It  means  a  great  many  things  under  the  sur- 
face that  I  do  not  care  to  discuss  now — many  things  in  the  way 
of  possibilities. 

Bishop  Cranston :  Don't  you  think  the  matter  would  be  less 
complicated  if  you  should  provide  that  each  Annual  Conference 
may  create  a  committee  to  advise  and  cooperate  with  the  Re- 
gional Conference  which  is  composed  of  delegates  to  the  General 
Conference,  making  an  advisory  and  cooperative  relation,  rather 
than  a  different  body  ? 

J.  H.  Reynolds :  I  had  not  thought  of  that. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  am  not  able  to  see  anything  underlying  this 
except  what  is  on  the  surface.  Dr.  Downey  may  see  something 
under  this  which  I  do  not  see.  It  is  to  me  a  matter  of  practical 
import.  If  the  same  delegates  from  the  Regional  Conference  to 
the  General  Conference  are  to  compose  the  Regional  Conference, 
then  if  they  are  to  meet  at  the  same  place,  necessarily,  as  the 
General  Conference,  when  is  the  General  Conference  to  meet? 
Is  it  to  meet  in  the  afternoon  and  the  General  Conference  in  the 
morning?  Is  it  to  meet  before?  Is  it  to  have  alternate  days?  Is 
it  to  meet  after  the  General  Conference  meets?  Is  the  same  dele- 
gation which  is  to  be  in  the  General  Conference  for  two  or  three 
weeks  to  be  in  session  after  the  General  Conference  adjourns? 
Those  are  practical  questions.  Bishop  Denny  raises  a  point  which 
I  think  is  true,  that  any  Regional  Conference  which  meets  under 


Louisville  Meeting 


545 


the  shadow  of  a  General  Conference  is  of  necessity  somewhat 
determined  in  its  actions  by  the  atmosphere  in  which  it  meets. 
And  it  does  give  a  practical  objection  to  the  present  arrangement 
as  we  have  it.  Now,  there  was  only  one  difficulty  in  my  mind, 
and  that  was  the  question  of  the  election  of  bishops.  And  yet, 
upon  reflection,  the  General  Conference  could  determine  the 
number  of  bishops  and  by  telegraph  or  telephone  that  could  be 
communicated.  There  is  one  other  difficulty — namely,  that  the 
same  men  might  be  elected  to  both.  And  if  that  were  the  case, 
the  two  could  not  meet  at  the  same  time.  It  does  seem  to  me 
that  this  provision  should  be  adopted  because  it  leaves  it  to  each 
Regional  Conference  to  determine  for  itself.  It  is  not  compul- 
sory. It  does  not  require  that  it  shall  be  so.  But  if  in  the  prac- 
tical working  out  of  this  plan  we  find  it  wise  for  this  to  be 
adopted,  it  is  not  necessary  to  change  the  Constitution.  We 
have  the  provision  in  here  by  which  either  plan  could  be  followed. 
If  I  knew  of  anything  underlying  more  than  what  is  on  the  sur- 
face, I  might  change  my  views.  If  Dr.  Downey  has  something 
to  offer  which  is  of  greater  import  than  the  merely  parliamentary 
aspects  of  the  case,  I  would  be  glad  to  know  what  it  is.  It 
seems  to  me  it  merely  presents  an  alternative  plan,  and  the  Re- 
gional Conference  would  be  left  free  to  decide  which  is  the  bet- 
ter plan ;  and  we  could  trust  them  to  do  that. 

Bishop  Cranston :  Let  me  be  clear  as  to  what  Brother  Rey- 
nolds means.  Does  he  mean  it  to  be  composed  of  a  different 
personnel  and  to  meet  at  its  own  will,  where  it  will?  I  tell  you 
what  I  think — I  may  be  wrong.  When  you  come  to  the  election 
of  your  delegates  to  the  General  Conference,  it  will  be  under- 
stood, of  course,  at  the  time  and  always,  that  those  delegates  are 
the  men  who  are  to  elect  the  bishops  for  that  region.  There 
would  be  disappointed  men  as  to  a  place  in  that  delegation.  They 
will  be  able  to  express  themselves  forcibly,  conscientiously  if 
they  choose  to,  but  destructively  perhaps  to  the  unity  of  action 
of  the  whole  region,  if  they  fail  to  find  a  place  on  this  proposed 
extra  Regional  Conference.  I  think  you  are  opening  the  way 
to  more  difficulty  than  you  can  ever  control.  With  reference 
to  the  efficiency  of  the  Regional  Conference,  a  provision  of  the 
General  Conference  that  each  Annual  Conference  might  create 
a  committee,  or  we  might  say  that  each  residential  area  might 
have  a  committee  to  advise  and  cooperate  with  the  Regional  Con- 
ference concerning  the  affairs  of  the  Church  in  the  bounds  of 
their  Region — 

J.  H.  Reynolds:  Under  the  present  plan,  as  it  here  stands, 
cannot  the  Regional  Conference  meet  at  other  times  than  at  the 
time  of  meeting  of  the  General  Conference? 

Bishop  Cranston :  Yes,  sir. 
35 


546     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

J.  H.  Reynolds :  In  that  respect  there  would  not  be  any  dif- 
ference. 

Bishop  Cranston  :  I  think  there  would.  I  take  it  there  would 
be  affairs  in  every  region  that  would  not  admit  delay  of  nearly 
four  years  before  receiving  attention  from  the  Regional  Confer- 
ence. Also  the  arrangement  I  am  suggesting  would  work  directly 
in  with  any  emergency  that  might  arise  quite  as  well  as  what 
you  are  proposing.  My  knowledge  of  the  working  of  Church 
affairs  shows  me  that  if  you  make  it  too  large  a  body,  you  make 
it  possible  for  a  number  of  disaffected  men  to  be  brought  into 
this  Regional  organization  to  the  hurt  of  your  own  Region,  as 
well  as  the  injury  of  the  general  Church. 

J.  H.  Reynolds :  You  made  a  statement,  if  I  understood  you, 
that  even  under  this  plan  the  delegates  to  the  General  Conference 
would  continue  to  elect  bishops.  No !  The  provision  offered 
here  in  another  place  makes  the  Regional  Conference  the  body 
to  elect  bishops  from  that  Region.  If  this  plan  were  adopted, 
and  if  any  Region  took  advantage  of  its  provision,  not  the  dele- 
gates to  the  General  Conference  would  nominate  the  bishops  for 
the  Region,  but  this  Regional  Conference. 

Bishop  Cranston :  That  is  the  question  I  asked  at  the  outset. 
You  said,  "No,  it  would  be  made  up  as  a  different  body." 

J.  H.  Reynolds :  Perhaps  I  did  not  understand  your  question. 
All  the  powers  of  the  Regional  Conference  are  there,  the  power 
to  elect  bishops,  the  power  of  local  administration,  etc.  Those 
are  the  powers  lodged  in  the  Regional  Conference  by  Section  3 
of  this  document.  That  is  not  disturbed.  If  a  Regional  Confer- 
ence is  composed  of  members  of  the  General  Conference,  that 
rests  with  them.  If  a  given  Region  takes  advantage  of  the  pro- 
vision I  have  offered — namely,  constituting  the  Regional  Con- 
ference of  different  members  from  the  members  of  the  General 
Conference — then  this  power  resides  with  the  Regional  Confer- 
ence. 

Edgar  Blake:  A  point  of  order.  I  am  wondering  whether  we 
are  operating  under  the  three-minute  rule. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  five-minute  rule,  I 
believe. 

D.  G.  Downey :  I  will  not  be  led  into  any  acrimonious  debate, 
even  though  I  may  be  invited  thereto.  But  any  one  who  recalls 
the  course  of  the  debate  with  respect  to  Regional  Conferences, 
and  the  dangers  and  the  forces  connected  therewith,  thoroughly 
understands  what  I  have  in  mind.  It  is  said  that  this  simply 
opens  the  way  and  makes  it  optional.  That  is  one  of  the  reasons 
why  I  object  to  it.  This  plan  makes  for  segregation  and  differ- 
entiation in  the  matter  of  Regional  Conferences.  I  am  thor- 
oughly convinced  that  for  the  best  intere=ts  of  the  Church,  not 
only  should  the  powers  of  the  Regional  Conference  be  uniform, 


Louisville  Meeting 


547 


but  the  membership  and  the  plan  of  Regional  Conferences  should 
be  uniform.  We  ought  not  to  foster  segregation  and  differentia- 
tion in  these  respects.  We  ought  to  plan  for  uniformity  and  for 
a  oneness  of  plan,  both  in  the  personnel,  the  membership,  and 
the  powers  of  the  various  Regional  Conferences.  A  Regional 
Conference  ought  not  to  be  one  thing  in  South  Carolina  and  an- 
other thing  in  New  York.  We  ought  to  know  what  a  Regional 
Conference  is.   We  ought  not  to  interject  these  divisive  plans. 

A.  J.  Lamar :  I  move  that  the  question  be  now  put. 

The  vote  was  taken,  and  the  Chair  was  in  doubt  as  to  the  re- 
sult. A  rising  vote  was  taken,  and  the  previous  question  was  not 
ordered. 

Edgar  Blake :  I  want  to  call  Dr.  Reynolds's  attention  to  the  fact 
that  what  he  proposes  does  not  seem  quite  clear.  For  instance, 
he  said,  "Provided  that  any  Regional  Conference  for  white  mem- 
bership in  the  United  States  by  a  two-thirds  vote  may  establish 
a  membership  for  said  Regional  Conference,  different  in  number 
and  personnel  from  its  membership  in  the  General  Conference.', 
That  would  seem  to  open  the  way  to  confusion,  that  in  some  way 
its  members  in  the  General  Conference  still  possessed  regional 
functions.  I  know  you  do  not  mean  that.  You  intend  to  create 
another  body  that  shall  supplant  the  body  now  provided  for.  But 
I  think  you  have  not  quite  done  it. 

F.  M.  Thomas :  I  think  Dr.  Downey  is  correct  in  his  interpre- 
tation of  the  history  of  this  matter  and  the  general  framing  up 
of  the  minds  of  the  two  Commissions  toward  this  matter.  But  I 
would  call  attention  to  the  fact — it  is  not  exactly  on  a  parity, 
but  very  much  so — that  this  privilege  of  the  Regional  Conference 
is  possessed  by  the  colored  membership. 

D.  G.  Downey:  Do  you  want  to  take  the  restrictions  that  the 
colored  brethren  have,  in  order  to  get  the  privilege  ? 

The  vote  was  taken  on  Dr.  Linn's  substitute,  and  it  did  not 
prevail.  Dr.  Reynolds's  motion  was  put  to  vote,  and  failed  to 
carry,  the  vote  standing  26  to  10. 

P.  H.  Linn:  I  move  that,  subject  to  confirmation  of  this  action 
by  the  separate  Commissions,  we  transmit  as  our  report  to  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
the  report  of  the  ad  interim  committee,  as  amended,  together  with 
adopted  resolutions  as  to  procedure  in  organizing  the  Methodist 
Church. 

A.  J.  Lamar:  Is  that  intended  as  a  substitute  for  a  letter  of 
transmission? 

P.  H.  Linn :  No,  this  is  simply  getting  a  definite  matter  before 
us  so  that  we  can  separate  into  our  Commissions  and  then  come 
back. 

A.  J.  Lamar :  That  opens  the  question  whether  we  wish  to 


548     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

submit  all  that  with  recommendations.  That  is  not  made  clear. 
I  want  something  of  this  sort,  and  I  offer  this  as  a  substitute: 
"We  respectfully  submit  to  the  General  Conferences  of  the  two 
Churches  the  following  draft  of  a  constitution  for  the  Methodist 
Church,  as  the  best  that  we  have  been  able  to  construct  under  the 
circumstances,  and  we  submit  the  same  without  recommendation 
as  to  acceptance  or  rejection."  We  submit  it  to  the  General 
Conferences  for  their  decision.  I  am  willing  to  vote  for  this 
plan  with  the  letter  of  transmittal  that  carries  that  idea.  But  I 
cannot  vote  for  the  plan  as  being  recommended  by  us. 

D.  G.  Downey:  Do  you  insist  upon  the  precise  language? 

A.  J.  Lamar :  No,  but  the  idea. 

D.  G.  Downey :  Submit  it  without  saying  that  we  do  not  recom- 
mend it. 

A.  J.  Lamar :  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  submit  this  plan  to  our 
General  Conferences  as  the  best  we  have  been  able  to  do.  I  am 
not  willing  to  commit  myself  as  being  committed  to  that  plan. 

Bishop  Moore :  Why  not  use  the  language,  "We  submit  this 
for  your  consideration  and  final  determination"? 

A.  J.  Lamar:  If  you  mean  without  recommendation,  why  not 
say  so?  Why  have  Dr.  Linn  and  Bishop  Moore  and  Bishop 
Cannon  and  others  saying  that  we  do  not  approve  it,  and  then 
have  Brother  Lamar  and  Brother  Samford  and  half  a  dozen 
other  brethren  saying,  "We  did  not  do  anything  of  the  sort"? 
You  have  room  for  division.  Let  us  make  it  clear  that  we  sub- 
mit it  to  the  judgment  of  the  General  Conferences.  I  am  willing 
to  submit  to  their  decision.  I  do  not  propose  to  fight  it.  I  simply 
submit  it  to  the  General  Conference  and  say,  "Gentlemen,  that 
is  the  best  I  could  do  as  your  Commissioner.  I  am  willing  to 
abide  by  your  decision.  If  you  want  that,  I  am  willing  for  you 
to  take  it.  If  you  do  not  want  it,  I  am  perfectly  willing  for  you 
to  reject  it." 

Bishop  Moore :  It  is  my  opinion  that  we  are  not  appointed  to 
make  recommendations.  I  was  just  in  the  act  of  writing  some- 
thing. I  had  written  this :  "The  Commissions  on  Unification  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  were  appointed  by  their  respective  General  Con- 
ferences to  elaborate  and  perfect  a  tentative  plan  of  unification, 
that  had  been  proposed  in  the  suggestions  of  the  Joint  Commis- 
sion on  Federation  formulated  in  May,  191 1,  at  Chattanooga, 
Tenn.,  and  instructed  to  carry  forward  such  negotiations  as 
would  result  in  the  proposed  unification  in  accord  with  the  basic 
principles  enunciated  in  the  suggestion,  and  to  report  to  the  next 
General  Conference  the  full  details  of  a  plan  of  unification  which 
may  be  agreed  upon  by  them,  for  their  consideration  and  deter- 
mination." We  were  appointed  simply  to  elaborate  and  perfect 
the  plan  contained  in  these  suggestions.    After  we  have  finished 


Louisville  Meeting 


549 


our  work  we  have  nothing  to  do  except  to  transmit  this  to  them. 
It  is  not  a  matter  for  our  recommendation.  It  is  not  a  matter 
that  we  should  take  upon  ourselves  with  responsibility.  What 
they  want  is  the  plan.  We  have  perfected  the  plan.  I  agree  with 
Dr.  Lamar  thoroughly  that  the  thing  for  us  to  do  is  to  transmit 
this  plan.  If  you  want  to  say  "without  recommendation,"  ail 
right. 

A.  J.  Lamar :  I  am  willing  to  admit  that  what  I  wrote  is  very 
imperfect.  I  am  willing  to  say,  "We  would  not  presume  to  rec- 
ommend to  you." 

T.  N.  Ivey:  It  is  true  we  were  not  appointed  to  recommend 
anything.  It  is  equally  true  that  if  we  were  not  appointed  to 
recommend  to  the  General  Conference  we  have  no  power  to  send 
up  anything  with  the  words  "without  recommendation."  I  would 
not  be  willing  to  vote  for  any  paper  containing  those  words. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Let  the  Chair  inquire  just 
what  the  parliamentary  situation  is. 

P.  H.  Linn :  My  paper  is  before  the  house.  Dr.  Lamar's  mo- 
tion came  as  a  substitute.  Am  I  right  in  understanding  that  be- 
fore we  can  submit  any  paper  to  the  General  Conferences  by  a 
vote  of  the  Joint  Commission,  it  must  be  voted  on  by  the  sep- 
arate Commissions?  That  is  why  I  put  this  in  this  shape,  "sub- 
ject to  confirmation  of  this  action  by  the  separate  Commissions." 
That  does  not  appear  in  Dr.  Lamar's  amendment.  If  the  Com- 
missions do  not  pass  that,  where  are  we  ?  You  will  have  to  come 
back  from  the  separate  Commissions  and  report  what  we  have 
done.  I  understand  the  vote  must  be  taken  not  only  by  the  Joint 
Commission  but  by  the  separate  Commissions.  I  contend  for  the 
superiority  of  my  paper  in  this,  that  there  is  no  reference  made 
to  all  those  papers  adopted  here  for  the  matters  of  procedure, 
if  you  adopt  Dr.  Lamar's  paper.  I  have  provided  that  you  not 
only  submit  your  constitution,  but  submit  the  adopted  resolutions 
concerning  procedure.   Therefore,  it  is  much  more  perfect. 

A.  J.  Lamar :  I  am  willing  to  add  that. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  wish  to  offer  an  amendment  to  Dr.  Linn's 
paper.   Dr.  Linn,  please  read  it. 

Dr.  Linn  complied  with  the  request. 

Bishop  Cannon :  I  propose  this :  "We  respectfully  transmit  this 
paper  to  the  General  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  and  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  as  the 
best  draft  of  a  constitution  for  the  united  Church  which  we  have 
been  able  to  frame,  giving,  as  it  does,  the  best  solution  we  have 
been  able  to  reach  of  the  many  delicate  matters  involved  in  such 
consideration,  leaving  it  to  the  godly  judgment  of  the  General 
Conferences  to  take  such  action  as  they  may  deem  wise."  I  do 
not  think  we  should  recommend  it,  or  not  recommend  it;  but  I 
think  we  should  simply  transmit  it  as  the  best  draft  of  a  consti- 


55°     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

tution  which  we  can  frame,  stating  that  it  is  the  best  solution 
of  the  delicate  issues  which  have  been  brought  before  us,  leav- 
ing it  to  the  godly  judgment  of  the  General  Conference  to  take 
such  action  as  it  may  deem  wise.  I  offer  this  as  an  amendment 
to  Dr.  Linn's  paper. 

Bishop  Leete :  It  seems  to  me  Dr.  Linn's  paper  is  of  a  different 
nature  from  Bishop  Cannon's.  It  seems  to  me  we  can  adopt  his 
paper,  and  then  still  have  the  substance  of  Dr.  Lamar's  paper, 
or  any  other  that  may  be  presented  to  us  to  act  upon  alter  we 
have  acted  in  our  separate  Commissions.  I  think  Dr.  Linn's 
motion  is  simply  a  method  of  getting  ahead  with  this  business. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  Chair  is  under  the  im- 
pression that  Bishop  Cannon's  paper  is  not  an  amendment,  but 
a  substitute,  and  is  therefore  out  of  order,  as  you  cannot  enter- 
tain two  substitutes  at  once. 

Edgar  Blake :  The  matters  before  us  are  matters  of  transmis- 
sion, and  have  to  do  with  that  letter  of  transmission,  action  upon 
which  we  deferred  pending  suggestions. 

P.  H.  Linn :  I  simply  say  that  we  submit  this  report.  The 
form  of  its  submission  would  naturally  come  up  when  your  letter 
just  now  upon  the  table  is  taken  up. 

Edgar  Blake :  The  question  we  ought  to  come  to  directly  is 
the  question  whether  we  are  going  to  approve  this  report  or  not, 
for  purposes  of  transmission.  I  would  like  to  move,  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  all  that  is  before  us,  that  we  approve  the  report  of  the 
Committee  of  Fourteen  as  amended  by  the  Joint  Commission  for 
the  purpose  of  transmission  to  our  respective  General  Confer- 
ences for  their  consideration  and  final  determination — that  is, 
that  we  approve  it  for  purposes  of  transmission. 

P.  H.  Linn :  What  paper? 

Edgar  Blake :  The  report  of  the  Committee  of  Fourteen,  as 
amended  by  the  Joint  Commission. 

P.  H.  Linn :  What  about  all  the  other  matters  we  have  adopted 
concerning  procedure? 

Edgar  Blake:  We  do  not  have  to  deal  at  this  time  with  those 
resolutions  which  we  have  already  agreed  to  refer  to  our  re- 
spective General  Conferences.  Those  are  out  of  the  way  for  the 
time  being. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  Can  matters  finally  be  acted  upon  by  ihe 
Commissions  separately? 

Bishop  Cooke:  We  are  getting  the  cart  before  the  horse.  How 
can  we  approve  of  a  thing  here,  which  we  have  not  approved 
or  disapproved  in  our  separate  Commissions?  It  seems  to  me 
the  logical  order  would  be  for  us  to  adjourn,  and  each  Commis- 
sion take  up  this  matter,  and  then  return,  and  send  down  for 
transmission  after  comparing  views. 

Edgar  Blake:  It  seems  to  me  that  when  we  meet  in  separate 


Louisville  Meeting 


Commissions,  we  want  some  motion  before  the  two  Commis- 
sions. My  purpose  is,  if  we  can  clear  the  way  for  this,  then  to 
have  action  taken  on  these  by  separate  Commissions. 

Bishop  Cooke :  Then,  if  we  approve  of  it  here,  we  may  approve 
of  it  in  our  separate  Commissions.  And  if  we  reject  it  here,  we 
may  approve  of  it  in  our  separate  Commissions. 

Edgar  Blake :  Are  we  not  agreed  that  we  ought  to  come  direct- 
ly to  the  question  of  our  approval  of  this  report  for  purposes  of 
transmission?  Ought  we  not  to  do  that  in  our  separate  Commis- 
sions? Suppose  that  we  move  to  lay  all  these  matters  now  before 
us  on  the  table — to  defer  action,  and  then  introduce  this  motion, 
that  we  approve  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Fourteen,  as 
amended  by  the  Joint  Commission,  for  purposes  of  transmission 
to  our  respective  General  Conferences,  and  that  the  consideration 
of  said  motion  be  in  separate  Commissions.  Does  not  that  do 
the  thing? 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve :  Do  you  mean  that  we  approve  simply  to  be 
transmitted? 

Edgar  Blake :  It  is  simply  for  purposes  of  transmission  to  our 
respective  General  Conferences.  I  move  that  we  lay  the  whole 
matter  on  the  table.   I  am  ready  to  go  home ! 

C.  C.  Selecman :  Some  of  us  are  not  ready  to  go  home  until 
we  vote. 

Rolla  V.  Watt :  I  sincerely  hope  that  Dr.  Blake's  motion  that 
we  lay  all  this  on  the  table  will  prevail. 

P.  H.  Linn:  We  are  all  trying  to  get  at  the  same  thing,  I 
think.   Now,  if  I  may  have  attention — 

Bishop  Moore :  It  is  certain  that  we  are  tired,  else  we  would 
not  be  as  nervous  as  we  are,  and  as  anxious  as  we  are.  Having 
done  so  well  this  afternoon,  let  us  go  patiently  on  to  the  end. 

P.  H.  Linn:  If  it  will  accomplish  any  unification  here  in  our 
sentiment  now,  I  will  change  the  word  "submit"  to  "transmit," 
so  that  my  paper  will  read,  "I  move  that,  subject  to  confirmation 
of  this  action  by  the  separate  Commissions,  we  transmit  as  our 
report  to  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  and  to  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  the  report  of  the  ad  interim  committee,  as  amend- 
ed, together  with  adopted  resolutions  as  to  procedure  in  organiz- 
ing the  Methodist  Church." 

A.  J.  Lamar :  Mine  reads  thus :  "We  respectfully  transmit  to 
the  General  Conferences  of  the  two  Churches  the  following  draft 
of  a  constitution  for  the  Methodist  Church,  together  with  rec- 
ommendations of  the  method  of  procedure,  as  the  best  we  have 
been  able  to  do  under  the  circumstances.  And  we  submit  the 
same  for  your  consideration  and  decision." 

Bishop  Moore:  It  seems  to  me  that  we  ought  to  take  that  to 
our  separate  Commissions. 


552     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

Edgar  Blake :  But  we  must  decide  between  these  two  docu- 
ments. 

Dr.  Blake's  substitute  did  not  prevail. 

Bishop  Cooke:  Is  Dr.  Lamar's  motion  open  to  amendment? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Certainly. 

Bishop  Cooke :  I  would  like  to  amend  by  substituting  the  words 
"instructions  given  us"  for  the  word  "circumstances." 

A.  J.  Lamar :  I  do  not  think  that  covers  the  ground,  for  our 
instructions  have  not  had  a  great  deal  to  do  with  our  actions  in 
the  Commission. 

At  Bishop  Cooke's  request,  Dr.  Lamar  read  his  amendment 
again,  in  the  form  last  given,  with  the  remark,  "My  idea  is  that 
it  is  vastly  important  that  in  our  separate  Commissions  we  act 
on  the  same  thing." 

Bishop  Cooke :  Circumstances  are  purely  ephemeral.  They 
may  come  or  go  or  change  in  an  hour.  But  the  instructions  are 
definite  and  clear. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  Chair  is  of  the  opinion 
that  this  Commission  is  ready  to  vote. 

Bishop  Cooke :  I  propose  to  retain  "circumstances"  and  add, 
"and  in  accord  with  the  instructions  given  us." 

Dr.  Lamar  accepted  that  amendment,  and  read  his  motion 
with  Bishop  Cooke's  additional  words  incorporated. 

J.  W.  Van  Cleve:  I  move  to  strike  out  everything  following 
the  word  "procedure." 

The  paper  as  presented  by  Dr.  Lamar  with  Bishop  Cooke's 
addition  was  adopted,  reading  as  follows :  "That  we  respectfully 
transmit  to  the  General  Conferences  of  the  two  Churches  the 
following  draft  of  a  constitution  for  the  Methodist  Church,  to- 
gether with  recommendations  for  methods  of  procedure,  as  the 
best  that  we  have  been  able  to  agree  upon  under  the  circum- 
stances, and  in  accord  with  the  instructions  given  us,  and  we  sub- 
mit the  same  for  their  consideration  and  decision." 

Bishop  Denny :  I  take  it  that  under  ordinary  rules  of  parlia- 
mentary practice  those  opposed  have  a  right  to  have  their  oppo- 
sition recorded.  And  I  am  sure  that  I  shall  be  called  upon  for 
an  explanation  of  any  vote  in  favor  of  this  paper.  Holding  the 
proxy  of  Bishop  Ainsworth,  I  desire  my  name  and  Bishop  Ains- 
worth's  name  to  be  entered  as  voting  against  it. 

C.  A.  Pollock :  May  I  ask  if  this  report,  when  it  goes  down, 
will  be  signed  by  the  Commission?  If  it  is,  the  absence  of  their 
names  will  be  apparent. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  Chair  rules,  of  course, 
that  any  man  has  the  right  to  have  his  name  recorded  as  opposed 
to  a  measure. 

Judge  McGowan,  Judge  Samford,  and  Dr.  Dickey  asked  to  be 
recorded  as  voting  against  the  resolution. 


Louisville  Meeting 


553 


G.  W.  Brown :  I  hold  in  my  hands  a  proxy.  It  empowers  me 
to  vote  on  this  final  question  when  it  goes  up  to  the  General 
Conference.  It  is  from  Judge  Henry  Wade  Rogers,  and  I  will 
vote  his  proxy  in  favor  of  this  proposition. 

Bishop  Leete :  Is  there  not  some  way  by  which  these  brothers 
can  amend  the  proposition  so  that  they  can  combine  with  us  in 
its  presentation?  If  there  is  any  change  of  verbiage,  or  any 
other  change  of  a  kind  which  would  relieve  their  minds  of  ap- 
prehension, many  of  us  would  be  glad  to  see  that  change  made. 
Bishop  Moore  said  we  were  not  charged  with  responsibility  to 
make  recommendations  to  the  General  Conference.  But  we  are 
charged  with  the  duty  of  making  our  report  to  the  General  Con- 
ference. There  are  a  good  many  of  us  who  think  there  is  a  far 
better  plan  than  that.  But  there  has  been  no  time  when  it  could 
be  appropriately  presented  without  the  appearance  of  opposing 
the  plan  that  is  before  us.  If  there  is  some  way  by  which  we 
can  transmit  this  in  accord  with  our  instructions,  that  will  carry 
with  it  the  consent  of  these  brethren,  I  think  they  ought  to  state 
it  frankly.  I  have  this  great  hope,  that  the  majority  of  this 
body  will  not  in  any  way  whatever  coerce  the  conscience  or  in- 
telligence of  any  man  connected  with  this  body.  If  there  is  any 
way  by  which  we  may  put  the  expression  of  transmission  so  that 
it  may  satisfy  every  man  here,  I  hope  and  pray  it  may  be  done 
right  now.  That  is  the  brotherly  thing  to  do.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  our  work  will  stand  or  fall  on  its  own  merits.  I  think  pos- 
sibly there  is  a  broader  way  of  stating  it. 

E.  B.  Chappell:  I  am  definitely  instructed  by  Dr.  Watkins  to 
cast  his  vote  in  the  affirmative  with  reference  to  the  resolution 
embodied  in  this  vote. 

Bishop  Moore:  I  move  that  we  now  adjourn  to  go  into  sepa- 
rate sessions  to  act  upon  this. 

Rolla  V.  Watt :  Cannot  some  attention  be  paid  to  the  sugges- 
tion of  Bishop  Leete?  I  am  not  for  some  of  these  propositions. 
If  these  brethren  who  have  recorded  their  votes  in  the  negative 
could  suggest  a  form  which  would  be  satisfactory  to  them,  I 
should  be  glad  to  have  it  go  up  without  dissenting  votes. 

On  motion  of  Bishop  Moore,  it  was  voted  to  take  a  recess  of 
thirty  minutes,  and  at  5  104  p.m.  the  two  Commissions  went  into 
separate  sessions. 

At  5  135,  the  Commissions  came  together  again,  and  resumed 
work  as  a  Joint  Commission. 

Secretary  Harris:  I  am  instructed  to  report  the  adoption  by 
the  Commission  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  a  reso- 
lution as  follows:  "Resolved,  That  the  Commissioners  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  formally  accept  and  approve  the 
resolution  offered  by  Dr.  Lamar  in  the  Joint  Commission."  This 
resolution  was  adopted  by  a  unanimous  vote. 


554     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

Secretary  Harris  also  reported  that  the  Commissioners  from 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  adopted  the  following  res- 
olution :  "Resolved,  That  we  recommend  that  an  additional  com- 
mittee of  five  from  each  Commission  be  appointed  to  edit  the 
final  report,  and  that  this  committee  be  instructed  to  print  and 
send  to  each  Commissioner  a  copy  of  the  document." 

F.  M.  Thomas  reported  for  the  Southern  Commissioners,  and 
said  that  they  approved  Dr.  Lamar's  resolution  by  a  vote  of  19 
to  5. 

Bishop  Denny:  I  would  like  to  ask  whether  rearrangement 
would  not  be  approved  by  our  brethren,  as  well  as  by  those  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Some  rearrangement  needs 
to  be  made,  and  as  a  body  of  Methodists  we  do  not  wish  such 
a  paper  to  go  out  except  in  the  best  possible  form. 

P.  H.  Linn:  I  move  that  the  second  resolution  reported  to  us 
by  the  Commission  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  be  made 
the  action  of  this  body. 

This  motion  prevailed. 

J.  H.  Reynolds :  I  move  to  clothe  that  committee  of  ten  just 
created  with  authority  to  deal  with  any  question  which  might 
come  up  between  now  and  the  meeting  of  the  General  Conference 
to  which  this  paper  is  to  be  submitted,  and  which  may  require 
action,  thus  making  it  unnecessary  to  call  together  the  two  Com- 
missions as  a  whole. 

Bishop  Cannon:  Do  you  mean  by  correspondence,  or  not? 

J.  H.  Reynolds:  Of  course  I  do  not  mean  that  they  should 
essentially  modify  our  work.  I  do  not  know  that  I  could  suggest 
what  questions  might  come  up,  but  questions  might  come  up  on 
which  there  ought  to  be  general  concurrence,  with  which  the  com- 
mittee could  deal  without  the  necessity  of  calling  the  Commission 
together. 

A.  J.  Lamar :  A  delegated  authority  cannot  be  delegated.  Ours 
is  a  delegated  authority,  and  we  cannot  delegate  it  to  anybody 
else. 

D.  G.  Downey :  Have  we  completed  the  necessary  legal  votes  ? 
What  I  mean  is  this:  Did  we  adopt  Brother  Lamar's  paper  in 
the  Joint  Commission?  If  not,  we  ought  to  attend  to  it  now.  I 
move  that  we  formally  adopt,  as  the  finding  of  this  Joint  Com- 
mission, the  paper  of  Dr.  Lamar  that  has  been  formally  adopted 
by  each  of  the  Commissions  in  separate  session. 

This  motion  prevailed. 

Bishop  Denny:  I  will  now  request  that  my  negative  be  put 
in  here  again,  not  from  stubbornness,  but  to  save  explanations 
that  I  will  be  called  on  to  make,  if  I  vote  for  any  such  motion  as 
that.    Please  enter  my  name  as  opposed. 

Judge  Samford,  Judge  McGowan,  and  Dr.  Dickey  asked  that 
their  votes  be  recorded  in  the  negative.    Dr.  Downey  and  Dr. 


Louisville  Meeting 


555 


Joy,  who  jointly  held  Bishop  McDowell's  proxy,  asked  that 
Bishop  McDowell's  vote  be  recorded  in  the  affirmative. 

Bishop  Moore :  We  had  before  us  early  in  the  session  this  af- 
ternoon the  matter  of  a  letter  of  transmission.  Is  anything  in 
addition  to  the  votes  that  we  have  passed  to  be  put  in? 

Bishop  Cranston :  I  want  to  move  a  sentence  additional  to  that 
preamble. 

P.  H.  Linn :  Has  that  committee,  provided  for  in  the  adoption 
of  the  report  of  the  committee  on  which  I  served,  relating  to 
the  editing  or  reconciling  slight  differences  in  the  Rules  and  Ar- 
ticles of  Faith,  been  appointed? 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  No.  If  the  brethren  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  are  ready  to  announce  their  mem- 
bers of  the  committee,  the  Chairman  of  the  Commission  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  is  ready  to  make  a  similar 
announcement. 

D.  G.  Downey :  Can  we  not  simplify  that  matter  by  referring 
it  to  the  Committee  of  Ten? 

P.  H.  Linn :  Four  would  be  better  than  ten. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  The  Southern  members  of 
the  Committee  ordered  by  the  resolution  which  Dr.  Linn  pre- 
sented will  be  Dr.  Thomas  and  Dr.  Linn. 

D.  G.  Downey:  I  take  the  chance  of  getting  the  consent  of  the 
members  of  our  own  Commission.  Dr.  Harris  and  Dr.  Stuart 
are  preeminently  qualified  for  that  work.  I  move  that  they  be 
the  two  men  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  Commission 
on  that  committee. 

They  were  appointed. 

C.  M.  Stuart:  May  I  have  a  word  of  personal  privilege?  It 
is  a  matter  of  great  regret  to  me  that  I  was  not  present  when  a 
matter  of  great  importance  was  under  discussion,  in  reference 
to  the  provision  that  the  General  Conference  shall  not  revoke 
our  established  standards  of  doctrine,  or  establish  any  new  stand- 
ards of  doctrine.  I  really  think  if  we  are  to  go  before  the 
Church  with  the  position  that  there  shall  be  no  change  in  our 
doctrinal  standards,  we  shall  make  a  serious  blunder.  All  schol- 
ars know  that  there  is  progress  of  doctrine  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. It  seems  to  me  if  we  go  before  the  people  with  the  under- 
standing that  we  shall  recognize  no  progress  of  doctrine,  we 
shall  endanger  ourselves.  If  we  make  it  incumbent  upon  the 
pastors  of  our  Church  to  read,  once  a  quarter,  the  Articles  of 
Religion,  it  would  be  very  certain  that  inside  of  a  year  the 
Church  itself  would  rise  up  and  demand  something  to  be  done. 
It  is  too  late  to  bring  this  matter  up  for  consideration  now.  But 
I  think  I  ought  to  call  attention  to  this,  because  in  the  department 
of  work  to  which  I  am  called  it  is  getting  to  be  a  very  embar- 
rassing thing  to  have  theological  instructors  handicapped  by  ref- 


556     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


erence  to  Articles  of  Religion  which  were  produced  for  a  to- 
tally different  state  of  affairs.  The  Episcopal  Church  itself  has 
outgrown  them.  I  thought  I  ought  to  say  that,  just  by  way  of 
personal  explanation. 

P.  H.  Linn :  As  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judicial 
Council,  I  saw  yesterday  that,  owing  to  the  early  session  we  had, 
it  was  not  possible  to  get  at  the  minutes  of  the  meeting;  and  we 
had  understood  that  the  provision  moved  by  Dr.  Blake  this  morn- 
ing, that  seven  of  the  fifteen  elected  at  the  first  General  Confer- 
ence should  have  their  terms  expire  at  the  end  of  the  first  Gen- 
eral Conference  after  their  election,  was  adopted.  Dr.  Blake 
has  some  doubt  as  to  whether  that  was  adopted.  We  thought  it 
was.    If  it  was  not,  it  ought  to  be  adopted  now. 

Edgar  Blake:  I  desire  to  move  that  we  amend  page  11,  line 
6,  by  adding  the  words,  "Except  that  seven  of  the  number  of  the 
first  Judicial  Council  shall  be  elected  for  four  years,  and  their 
successors  thereafter  for  eight  years." 

This  motion  prevailed. 

After  the  vote  was  taken,  Bishop  Mouzon  said :  "Really,  you 
would  have  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  that  measure  was 
adopted  before  you  can  get  this  amendment  in,  because  you  have 
passed  on  your  whole  paper.  It  can  be  done  by  common  consent. 
With  that  understanding,  it  is  done." 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  Is  there  any  further  busi- 
ness to  come  before  the  Commission?  You  ordered  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  committee  of  ten,  five  from  each  Church,  to  edit  and 
put  in  proper  form  this  report  which  has  been  adopted.  The 
Chair  will  announce  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  the  following  members  of  the  committee:  Bishop  Moore, 
F.  M.  Thomas,  H.  N.  Snyder,  J.  H.  Reynolds,  P.  D.  Maddin. 

The  members  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Commission  were 
announced  to  be  Bishop  McDowell,  A.  W.  Harris,  Edgar  Blake, 
D.  G.  Downey,  J.  R.  Joy. 

The  report  of  the  Committee  on  Resolutions  was  read  as  fol- 
lows, and  adopted : 

Resolved,  That  we  tender  our  thanks  to  the  presiding  elder  of  the 
Louisville  District,  and  the  pastor  of  Fourth  Avenue  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  for  their  courtesies ;  to  the  official  boird  of  Fourth  Avenue 
Church  for  the  use  of  their  church  building  for  our  sessions ;  to  the  ladies 
of  the  congregation  for  the  delightful  dinner  and  evening's  entertainment 
provided  for  us  :  to  the  Methodist  pastors  of  the  city  for  their  considera- 
tion and  hospitality;  and  to  the  daily  papers  for  the  intelligent  and  kindly 
way  in  which  they  have  dealt  with  the  Commission  and  its  work. 

John  M.  Moore, 
E.  B.  Chappell, 
Albert  J.  Nast, 
Robert  E.  Jones. 


Louisville  Meeting 


557 


Rolla  V.  Watt:  I  would  like  to  say  in  the  last  moment  that 
while  I  have  not  felt  that  I  could  vote,  as  some  of  your  brethren 
have  done,  against  the  submission  of  this  report,  it  is  quite  con- 
trary to  what  I  could  desire.  And  I  assume  that  in  the  discus- 
sion of  this  matter  in  the  future  we  are  not  estopped  from  ex- 
pressing our  opinion  in  reference  to  matters  as  to  which  we  dis- 
agree. I  do  not  want  to  be  disloyal  to  the  Commission ;  but  my 
judgment  has  been  outvoted  so  many  times  that  I  want  to  put 
this  statement  on  record. 

Bishop  Leete:  It  seems  to  me  every  man  is  free  to  do  what 
he  thinks  wisest  and  best. 

Bishop  Moore:  I  would  be  glad  if  we  might  have  a  word  or 
two  from  a  man  we  all  love  very  dearly,  who  has  carried  upon 
his  heart  the  interests  of  this  great  work.  I  would  like  to  have 
a  word  of  blessing,  and  I  know  it  will  be  such,  from  our  dear 
brother,  Bishop  Cranston. 

J.  H.  Reynolds :  I  would  like  to  make  this  additional  sugges- 
tion, that  Bishop  Cranston  preside  over  the  last  minute  or  two 
of  our  Conference,  and  that  he  be  asked  to  say  such  things  as 
are  in  his  heart,  and  conduct  such  religious  services  as  we  should 
have  appropriate  to  the  closing. 

The  Chairman  (Bishop  Mouzon)  :  That  is  very  fitting  indeed. 
A  motion  is  hardly  necessary. 

Secretary  Thomas  read  the  minutes  of  the  afternoon  session, 
and  they  were  approved. 

Bishop  Cranston  took  the  chair  and  the  Commission  greeted 
him  with  applause.  He  spoke  as  follows :  "I  have  too  much  con- 
sideration for  you  to  occupy  your  time  in  any  extended  con- 
gratulatory remarks.  A  number  of  you  have  been  in  this  serv- 
ice for  the  union  of  these  Churches  as  long  as  I  have.  In  some 
way,  possibly  because  I  was  approaching  my  retirement,  and 
since  my  retirement  the  larger  liberty  given  me  by  that  fact,  I 
have  been  led  to  a  more  ardent  expectation  of  the  early  reorgan- 
ization of  the  two  Churches  than  some  of  you  who  have  been  in 
the  midst  of  affairs  and  constantly  in  contact  with  a  spirit  of 
antagonism  here  and  there  throughout  both  Churches.  I  take  no 
credit  to  myself  for  what  I  believe  the  Spirit  of  God  has  been 
leading  me  to  do  in  urging  a  reunion  of  the  two  great  bodies  of 
Methodists.  We  have  been  so  busily  engaged  in  these  last  stren- 
uous days,  and  the  situation  is  still  so  tense,  that  there  is  little 
room  for  emotional  expression.  I  think  God  is  looking  to  us, 
every  one — and  I  think  you  agree  with  me — to  do  whatever  may 
be  possible  within  the  compass  of  man's  power  or  influence  to 
bring  about  the  reunion  of  the  severed  forces  of  our  Methodism. 
It  is  a  matter  now  committed  in  a  peculiar  way  to  us  who  have 
been  more  highly  favored  than  our  brothers  and  sisters  of  the 
two  great  communions.    To  them  our  propositions  will  come, 


558     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 

of  course,  without  any  fire  or  fervor.  They  will  be  received  in 
the  cold  atmosphere  of  judgment,  some  sympathetic  and  some 
apathetic,  possibly  some  hostile.  And  it  would  seem  to  devolve 
upon  us  to  see  that  the  plan  which  we  are  sending  to  our  Gen- 
eral Conferences  shall  have  at  least  a  fair  hearing.  For  my  own 
part,  I  have  thanked  God,  hundreds  of  times,  for  one  gift  that 
I  have  cherished  above  others  in  my  natural  equipment — the 
ability  to  put  myself  into  the  mental  and  traditional  attitude  of 
the  man  with  whom  I  disagree.  I  have  found  it  possible  always 
to  have — if  sincere  and  temperate — fellowship  of  heart  in  the 
very  presence  of  the  most  contradictory  expressions  of  sentiment 
or  judgment.  And  I  have  held  it  as  an  obligation  to  give  to 
every  man  that  just  interpretation  both  of  his  personality  and  his 
opinion  which  I  have  felt  that  I  had  a  right  to  expect  from  every 
other.  Can  less  than  this  be  Christian?  Now,  brethren,  our  fel- 
lowship having  been  so  delightful,  it  seems  to  me  I  can  appeal 
to  every  man  here  to-night  to  agree  that  what  has  been  possible 
for  us,  calling  constantly  upon  God  to  hold  possession  of  our 
minds  and  to  keep  our  souls  in  charity  would  have  been  possi- 
ble to  our  entire  people  under  the  same  conditions  or  like  con- 
ditions. It  is  true,  you  were  a  body  of  picked  men.  And  yet 
we  can  count  on  the  people,  I  think,  for  the  spirit  of  good  fel- 
lowship if  we  give  them  the  opportunity  for  good  fellowship. 
My  belief  is  that  as  we  go  out  now  we  shall  find  the  outlook  for 
reuniting  the  two  Churches  constantly  improving.  Maybe  not, 
but  I  am  anticipating  that.  I  want  to  thank  you  for  all  the  marks 
of  personal  consideration  which  I  have  enjoyed  at  your  hands, 
and  to  join  with  you  in  thanks  to  God  for  his  goodness,  and  in 
prayer  for  his  further  blessing  upon  the  work  of  our  hearts  and 
hands  as  representatives  of  our  respective  Churches.  Shall  we 
sing 

'Come,  thou  almighty  King, 
Help  us  thy  name  to  sing'?" 

This  hymn  was  sung,  Bishop  Cranston  led  in  a  closing  prayer, 
and  final  adjournment  was  effected  at  6:10  p.m. 


REPORT  OF  THE  AD  INTERIM  COM 
MITTEE,  RICHMOND,  VA., 
NOVEMBER  7,  1919 


♦ 


REPORT  SUBMITTED  BY  THE  AD  INTERIM  COM- 


MITTEE,  RICHMOND,  VA.,  NOVEMBER  7,  1919. 

Article  I.  Pastoral  Charges. 

The  membership  of  the  Church  shall  be  divided  into  local  societies,  one 
or  more  of  which  shall  constitute  a  pastoral  charge. 

Article  II.  Annual  Conferences. 

The  traveling  preachers  shall  be  organized  into  Annual  Conferences 
with  such  privileges  and  duties  as  are  hereinafter  provided  for.  Laymen 
shall  be  represented  in  the  Annual  Conference  in  a  number  to  be  deter- 
mined by  the  General  Conference,  which  shall  prescribe  their  qualifications 
and  the  method  of  their  election. 

Article  III.  Regional  Conferences. 

Section  1.  There  shall  be  the  following  Regional  Jurisdictions,  each 
having  its  own  Regional  Conference: 

A.  White  Membership  in  the  United  States. 

(1)  Maine,  New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island, 
Connecticut,  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  and  New  Jersey. 

(2)  Delaware,  Maryland,  District  of  Columbia,  Virginia,  West  Virginia, 
Kentucky,  and  North  Carolina. 

(3)  Tennessee,  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Florida,  Alabama,  and  Mis- 
sissippi. 

(4)  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Michigan,  and  Wisconsin. 

(5)  Minnesota,  Iowa,  Kansas,  Nebraska,  South  Dakota,  North  Dakota, 
Montana,  Wyoming,  Colorado,  Utah,  Nevada,  Idaho,  Washington,  Oregon, 
California,  Hawaii,  and  Alaska. 

(6)  Missouri,  Arkansas,  Louisiana,  Oklahoma,  Texas,  New  Mexico, 
and  Arizona. 

B.  Colored  Membership  in  the  United  States. 

(7)  The  Annual  Conferences,  Mission  Conferences,  and  Missions  em- 
bracing the  work  among  colored  people  in  the  United  States. 

C.  Membership  in  Foreign  Countries. 

(8)  The  Annual  Conferences,  Mission  Conferences,  and  Missions  in 
Porto  Rico,  Cuba,  Mexico,  Central  America,  and  South  America. 

(9)  The  Annual  Conferences,  Mission  Conferences,  and  Missions  in 
Europe,  the  Madeira  Islands,  and  in  Africa. 

(10)  The  Annual  Conferences,  Mission  Conferences,  and  Missions  in 
China,  Korea,  Philippine  Islands,  and  Malaysia. 

(11)  The  Annual  Conferences,  Mission  Conferences,  and  Missions  in 
India  and  Burma. 

Sec.  2.  Members. —  (a)  Each  Regional  Conference  for  White  Mem- 
bership in  the  United  States  shall  be  composed  of  the  ministerial  and 
lay  delegates  elected  to  the  General  Conference  by  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences within  the  territory  of  the  said  Regional  Conference. 

(b)  The  Regional  Conference  for  Colored  Membership  in  the  United 
States  shall  be  composed  as  follows: 
36 


562     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


One  ministerial  and  one  lay  delegate  from  and  elected  by  each  Annual 
Conference,  Mission  Conference,  and  Mission  of  its  jurisdiction  for  each 
2,000  Church  members  in  full  connection,  or  fraction  of  two-thirds  there- 
of ;  provided,  that  each  Annual  Conference,  Mission  Conference,  and 
Mission  shall  be  entitled  to  at  least  one  ministerial  and  one  lay  delegate. 
The  numerical  basis  of  representation  in  said  Regional  Conference  may 
be  changed  by  said  Regional  Conference,  subject  to  approval  by  the  Gen- 
eral Conference;  provided,  that  the  membership  of  said  Regional  Confer- 
ence shall  not  exceed  400  ministers  and  laymen  in  equal  numbers. 

(3)  Each  Regional  Conference  for  Membership  in  Foreign  Countries 
shall  be  composed  as  follows : 

One  ministerial  and  one  lay  delegate  from  and  elected  by  each  Annual 
Conference,  Mission  Conference,  and  Mission  of  its  jurisdiction  for  each 
2,000  Church  members  in  full  connection  or  fraction  of  two-thirds  there- 
of ;  provided,  that  each  Annual  Conference,  Mission  Conference,  and  Mis- 
sion shall  be  entitled  to  at  least  one  ministerial  and  one  lay  delegate. 
The  numerical  basis  of  representation  in  any  of  these  Regional  Confer- 
ences may  be  changed  by  said  Regional  Conference,  subject  to  approval 
by  the  General  Conference;  provided,  that  the  membership  of  said 
Regional  Conference  shall  not  exceed  400  ministers  and  laymen  in  equal 
numbers. 

Sec.  3.  Powers. —  (1)  Subject  to  the  limitations  and  restrictions  of  this 
Constitution,  each  Regional  Conference  shall  have  full  legislative  power 
over  all  distinctively  regional  affairs  within  its  area,  including  the  power 
to  fix  the  boundaries  of  Annual  Conferences,  Mission  Conferences,  and 
Missions,  and  to  provide  for  the  organization  of  the  same;  provided,  that 
no  new  Annual  Conference  shall  be  organized  in  the  States  of  the  United 
States  with  less  than  fourteen  thousand  Church  members  in  full  connec- 
tion therewith. 

(2)  It  shall  also  have  power  to  receive,  own,  transfer,  and  control 
educational,  benevolent,  and  charitable  institutions  of  the  Church  within 
its  own  territory  which  are  not  otherwise  legally  provided  for,  and  shall 
have  supervision  of  all  such  enterprises,  except  those  which  are  owned, 
controlled,  and  supervised  by  some  other  organic  agency  of  the  Church. 

(3)  Each  Regional  Conference  shall  have  power  to  elect  from  time  to 
time  the  number  of  bishops  allotted  to  it  by  the  General  Conference,  and 
said  bishops  shall  be  confirmed  by  the  General  Conference,  and  ordained 
by  the  bishops,  unless  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence, present  and  voting,  shall  object  to  said  confirmation;  provided, 
that  the  privileges,  powers,  and  duties  of  a  bishop  elected  by  or  for  a 
Colored  or  Foreign  Regional  Conference  shall  be  limited  to  the  Regional 
Jurisdiction  by  or  for  which  he  is  elected. 

(4)  The  powers  and  privileges  of  a  Foreign  Regional  Conference  rep- 
resenting less  than  150,000  Church  members  in  full  connection  shall  be 
determined  by  the  General  Conference. 

(5)  No  Regional  Conference  shall,  in  the  exercise  of  the  powers  pro- 
vided herein,  make  rules  or  regulations  contrary  to  or  in  conflict  with 
any  rule  or  regulation  made  by  the  General  Conference  for  the  govern- 
ment and  control  of  the  connectional  affairs  of  the  Church. 

Article  IV.  Associate  General  Conferences. 

Whenever  in  any  Colored  or  Foreign  Regional  Conference  the  mem- 
bership in  full  connection  shall  exceed  400,000,  upon  request  of  said  Con- 
ference, the  General  Conference  shall  organize  the  membership  of  said 
Conference  into  an  Associate  General  Conference,  with  the  privileges  and 
powers  herein  provided. 


Richmond  Meeting 


563 


An  Associate  General  Conference  shall  have  representation  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  ten  ministerial  and  ten  lay  delegates  with  the  right 
to  speak  and  to  vote  in  the  General  Conference  on  all  matters  which 
affect  the  interests  of  their  Jurisdiction.  The  General  Conference  may 
also  be  represented  in  an  Associate  General  Conference  by  ten  ministerial 
and  ten  lay  delegates. 

Sec.  1.  Members. — An  Associate  General  Conference  shall  be  composed 
of  an  equal  number  of  ministers  and  laymen  to  be  chosen  in  such  num- 
ber and  manner  as  said  Associate  General  Conference  may  determine. 

Sec.  2.  Powers. — Subject  to  the  restrictions  and  limitations  of  this 
Constitution,  each  Associate  General  Conference  shall,  so  far  as  relates 
to  its  jurisdiction,  have  all  the  powers  of  the  General  Conference,  legis- 
lative, executive,  and  judicial,  except  as  herein  otherwise  provided ; 

Provided,  that  an  Associate  General  Conference  shall  not  prescribe  con- 
ditions, privileges,  and  duties  of  Church  membership  that  are  contrary  to 
or  in  conflict  with  those  prescribed  by  the  General  Conference,  nor  shall 
it  define  and  fix  powers,  privileges,  and  duties  of  the  episcopacy  contrary 
to  or  in  conflict  with  the  powers,  privileges,  and  duties  of  the  episcopacy 
as  defined  and  fixed  by  the  General  Conference. 

Sec.  3.  Privileges. — An  Associate  General  Conference  shall  be  entitled : 

(1)  To  have  such  representation  as  the  General  Conference  may  de- 
termine upon  the  connectional  boards  or  societies  in  which  its  interests 
are  directly  involved. 

(2)  To  share  in  the  proceeds  of  the  Book  Concern  or  Publishing  House 
as  the  General  Conference  may  determine. 

Sec.  4.  Meetings. — An  Associate  General  Conference  shall  meet  quad- 
rennially and  at  such  other  times  and  at  such  places  as  it  may  determine. 

It  shall  be  governed  by  such  rules  of  procedure  as  it  may  itself  pre- 
scribe. 

Article  V.  The  General  Conference. 

Section  1.  Membership. — The  General  Conference  shall  be  composed  as 
follows : 

(a)  Of  not  less  than  one  hundred  ministerial  and  lay  delegates  in  equal 
numbers,  chosen  in  such  number  and  in  such  manner  as  the  General  Con- 
ference may  determine  from  each  of  the  White  Regional  Conferences  in 
the  United  States ;  provided,  that  the  number  of  delegates  from  any  one 
of  the  said  Regional  Jurisdictions  shall  not  exceed  twenty  per  cent  of 
the  total  membership  of  the  General  Conference. 

(b)  Of  not  less  than  thirty  nor  more  than  forty  ministerial  and  lay 
delegates  in  equal  numbers,  chosen  in  such  number  and  in  such  manner 
as  the  General  Conference  may  determine  from  the  Colored  Regional 
Jurisdiction  in  the  United  States ;  provided,  that  the  number  of  delegates 
from  said  Regional  Jurisdiction  shall  not  exceed  five  per  cent  of  the  total 
membership  of  the  General  Conference. 

(c)  Of  not  less  than  ten  nor  more  than  forty  ministerial  and  lay  dele- 
gates in  equal  numbers,  chosen  in  such  number  and  in  such  manner  as 
the  General  Conference  may  determine  from  each  of  the  Foreign  Regional 
Jurisdictions ;  provided,  that  the  number  of  delegates  from  any  one  of 
the  said  Regional  Jurisdictions  shall  not  exceed  five  per  cent  of  the  total 
membership  of  the  General  Conference. 

Sec.  2.  Powers. — Subject  to  the  limitations  and  restrictions  of  this  Con- 
stitution, the  General  Conference  shall  have  full  legislative  power  over  all 
matters  distinctively  connectional ;  and  in  the  exercise  of  said  powers 
shall  have  authority  as  follows : 

(1)  To  define  and  fix  the  conditions,  privileges,  and  duties  of  Church 
membership. 


564     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


(2)  To  define  and  fix  the  qualifications  and  duties  of  elders,  deacons, 
local  preachers,  exhorters,  and  deaconesses. 

(3)  To  provide  for,  define,  and  fix  the  powers  and  duties  of  District, 
Quarterly,  and  Church  Conferences. 

(4)  To  define  and  fix  the  powers  and  duties  of  Annual  Conferences, 
Mission  Conferences,  and  Missions. 

(5)  To  define  and  fix  the  powers  and  duties  of  Foreign  Regional  Con- 
ferences representing  a  membership  of  less  than  150.000  in  full  connec- 
tion, and  to  elect  and  assign  bishops  to  the  same. 

(6)  To  divide,  consolidate,  and  change  the  Regional  Conferences ;  but 
it  shall  not  take  away  territory  from  any  Regional  Conference  without  its 
consent,  save  by  the  concurrent  vote  of  two  successive  General  Confer- 
ences ;  nor  shall  it  create  any  new  Regional  Conference  with  less  than 
500,000  members  in  full  connection ;  provided,  that  the  boundaries  of  a 
Regional  Conference  shall  not  be  changed  without  its  consent  for  a  period 
of  three  quadrenniums  succeeding  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution. 

(7)  To  define  and  fix  the  privileges,  powers,  and  duties  of  the  episco- 
pacy, to  fix  the  number  of  bishops  to  be  elected  by  each  of  the  several 
Regional  Conferences ;  to  confirm  their  election ;  by  a  general  rule,  to 
superannuate  them  upon  reaching  a  determined  age,  and  to  retire  them 
for  inefficiency  or  unacceptability  after  due  notice  and  a  proper  hearing; 
provided,  that  it  shall  require  a  two-thirds  vote  to  retire  a  bishop  without 
the  concurrence  of  the  Regional  Conference  in  which  his  official  residence 
is  fixed. 

A  bishop  shall  be  assigned  by  the  General  Conference  for  residential 
supervision  to  the  Regional  Jurisdiction  by  or  for  which  he  was  elected, 
but  any  bishop,  except  as  herein  otherwise  provided,  may  be  assigned  by 
the  general  superintendents  to  any  Annual  Conference  for  presidential 
supervision,  if  a  majority  of  the  resident  bishops  of  the  jurisdiction  to 
which  he  is  assigned  shall  concur  in  said  assignment ;  but  such  con- 
currence shall  not  be  necessary  in  the  case  of  assignment  to  a  Colored  or 
Foreign  Regional  Jurisdiction. 

The  General  Conference  may  assign  a  bishop  to  any  jurisdiction  with 
the  consent  of  the  delegates  of  the  jurisdictions  from  which  the  bishop 
is  to  be  taken  and  to  which  he  is  to  be  assigned.  But  the  consent  of  the 
delegates  of  a  Foreign  Jurisdiction  shall  not  be  necessary  to  the  assign- 
ment or  transfer  of  a  bishop  to  or  from  a  Foreign  Regional  Jurisdiction. 

(8)  To  alter  and  change  the  hymnal  and  the  ritual  of  the  Church,  and 
to  regulate  all  matters  relating  to  the  form  and  mode  of  worship. 

(9)  To  prescribe  the  method  of  acquisition,  control,  and  disposition  of 
the  real  and  personal  property  of  the  Church  and  of  all  its  branches. 

(10)  To  govern  the  judicial  administration  of  the  Church,  except  as 
herein  otherwise  provided. 

(11)  To  consider,  and,  if  deemed  wise,  to  disapprove  of  the  decisions 
of  the  Judicial  Council  upon  any  constitutional  question  and  to  require 
its  submission  to  the  members  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences,  and 
the  decision  of  two-thirds  of  those  present  and  voting  shall  be  final 
thereon. 

(12)  To  control  and  direct  all  connectional  publishing,  missionary, 
benevolent,  and  educational  enterprises  of  the  Church. 

(13)  To  govern  any  and  all  other  matters  of  a  connectional  character. 

Restrictions. — Provided,  (1)  That  the  General  Conference  shall  not  re- 
voke, alter,  nor  change  our  Articles  of  Religion,  nor  establish  any  new 
standards  or  rules  of  doctrine  contrary  to  our  present  existing  and  es- 
tablished standards  of  doctrine. 

(2)  The  General  Conference  shall  not  change  or  alter  any  part  or  rule 


Richmond  Meeting 


565 


of  our  government  so  as  to  do  away  with  episcopacy,  or  to  destroy  our 
itinerant  general  superintendency. 

(3)  The  General  Conference  shall  not  revoke  nor  change  the  General 
Rules  of  our  Church. 

(4)  The  General  Conference  shall  not  deprive  our  ministers  of  the 
right  of  trial  by  the  Annual  Conference,  or  by  a  selected  number  thereof, 
nor  of  an  appeal ;  nor  shall  it  deprive  our  members  of  the  right  of  trial 
by  a  committee  of  members  of  our  Church ;  nor  of  an  appeal. 

(5)  The  General  Conference  shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the 
Publishing  House  or  Book  Concern,  nor  of  the  Chartered  Fund,  to  any 
purpose  other  than  for  the  benefit  of  the  traveling,  supernumerary,  and 
superannuated  preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children. 

Sec.  3.  Meetings. —  (1)  The  General  Conference  shall  meet  in  the  months 
of  April  or  May  once  in  four  years  perpetually  at  such  time  and  place  as 
shall  be  fixed  by  the  preceding  General  Conference,  or  by  a  commission 
to  be  appointed  quadrennially  by  the  General  Conference;  and  the  com- 
mission shall  have  power  to  change  the  place,  a  majority  of  the  general 
superintendents  concurring. 

(2)  The  general  superintendents  may,  by  a  two-thirds  vote,  and  shall, 
when  requested  by  a  majority  of  the  Annual  Conferences,  call  a  special 
session  of  the  General  Conference. 

(3)  When  the  time  for  the  opening  of  the  General  Conference  has 
arrived,  one  of  the  general  superintendents,  designated  by  the  Board  of 
Bishops,  shall  take  the  chair  and  conduct  the  opening  devotions  of  the 
session.  Following  the  devotions,  he  shall  direct  the  Secretary  of  the 
preceding  General  Conference,  or,  in  his  absence,  one  of  his  assistants,  to 
call  the  roll  of  the  delegates-elect.  The  general  superintendents,  before 
the  General  Conference  convenes,  shall  elect  from  their  own  number  one 
bishop,  or  more,  to  preside  during  the  session.  The  General  Conference, 
upon  organization,  shall  elect  such  other  officers  as  shall  be  necessary. 

Sec.  4.  Voting. — (1)  The  ministerial  and  lay  delegates  shall  deliberate 
as  one  body,  and,  except  as  otherwise  provided,  shall  vote  as  one  body ; 
but  each  delegate  shall  have  the  right  to  have  his  vote,  or  refusal  to 
vote,  recorded  by  name  on  the  journal. 

(2)  One-fifth  of  either  order  of  delegates,  present  and  voting,  may  re- 
quire a  vote  by  orders,  in  which  case  it  shall  require  the  concurrence  of 
the  two  orders  to  decide  the  matter  under  consideration,  except  that  for 
changes  in  the  Constitution  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the 
General  Conference,  present  and  voting,  shall  be  sufficient,  as  provided 
in  Article  VII. 

(3)  One-fifth  of  those  present  and  voting  may  require  that  a  "yea"  and 
"nay"  vote  be  taken. 

Whenever  a  majority  of  each  of  two  Regional  delegations  in  the 
United  States  shall  so  request,  a  vote  shall  be  taken  on  any  pending 
motion  or  resolution,  except  amendments  to  the  Constitution,  by  Regional 
delegations,  and  it  shall  require  the  concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  the 
Regional  delegations  in  the  United  States,  the  members  thereof  voting  as 
one  body,  to  adopt  said  motion  or  resolution ;  provided,  however,  that 
no  motion  or  resolution  shall  be  adopted  that  does  not  receive  a  majority 
vote  of  the  members  of  the  General  Conference  present  and  voting. 

Sec.  5.  Quorum. — Two-thirds  of  the  members  elected  to  the  General 
Conference  shall  be  necessary  for  a  quorum,  but  a  smaller  number  may 
adjourn  from  day  to  day,  and  at  the  final  session  may  approve  the  jour- 
nal, order  and  record  the  final  roll  call,  and  adjourn. 


566     Proceedings  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Unification 


Article  VI.  The  Judicial  Council. 

Section  1.  Title  and  Purpose. — There  shall  be,  and  hereby  is,  established 
a  Judicial  Council,  whose  decisions  shall  be  final,  except  as  herein  other- 
wise provided. 

Sec.  2.  Composition. — The  Judicial  Council  shall  be  composed  of  fifteen 
ministerial  and  lay  members,  to  be  nominated  by  the  general  superin- 
tendents by  a  two-thirds  vote  and  elected  by  the  General  Conference. 

Sec.  3.  Term  of  Service. — Members  of  the  Judicial  Council  shall  serve 
for  eight  (8)  years,  or  until  their  successors  are  confirmed,  and  shall  be 
eligible  for  reelection.  The  term  of  each  member  (except  as  provided  in 
Section  9),  shall  expire  at  the  close  of  the  second  General  Conference  suc- 
ceeding that  at  which  his  term  began. 

Sec.  4.  Eligibility. — Members  of  the  Judicial  Council  shall  not  be  eligi- 
ble to  membership  in  the  General  or  Regional  Conferences,  nor  shall  they 
hold  any  other  connectional  office,  nor  serve  on  any  connectional  board 
during  their  term.  After  the  first  election  no  member  of  the  General  or 
Regional  Conference  shall,  during  his  term  of  service,  be  eligible  to  mem- 
bership in  the  Judicial  Council.  No  member  of  the  Judicial  Council  shall 
hear,  review,  or  determine  any  case  before  the  Judicial  Council  to  which 
he  may  be  in  any  way  related,  nor  shall  he  sit  in  the  Council  while  such 
case  is  being  examined. 

Sec.  5.  Organisation. — The  members  of  the  Judicial  Council  shall  con- 
vene at  the  close  of  each  General  Conference,  and  shall  organize  by 
choosing  from  their  number,  by  ballot,  a  President  and  a  Secretary;  pro- 
vided, that  the  members  of  the  first  Judicial  Council  shall  organize  im- 
mediately upon  their  confirmation.  The  Secretary  shall  keep  a  record  of 
all  proceedings,  together  with  the  records  and  documents  in  each  case, 
with  the  decision  and  reasons  for  the  same,  and  shall  report  such  de- 
cisions to  the  parties  involved  and  also  to  the  succeeding  General  Con- 
ference.   All  decisions  of  the  Judicial  Council  shall  be  in  writing. 

Sec.  6.  Powers. —  (1)  The  Judicial  Council  shall  have  full  power  to  re- 
view, upon  appeal  on  constitutional  grounds,  the  acts  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, the  Associate  General  Conferences,  and  the  Regional  Confer- 
ences, the  records  and  documents  transmitted  to  it  from  Judicial  Confer- 
ences, to  hear  and  determine  questions  of  law  and  all  other  appeals  coming 
to  it  in  course  of  lawful  procedure;  provided,  that  no  appeal  from  any 
Conference  shall  be  entertained  unless  the  same  has  been  taken  by  at  least 
one-fifth  of  the  Conference. 

(2)  The  Judicial  Council  shall  also  have  power  to  arrest  an  action  of 
a  connectional  board  or  other  connectional  body,  when  such  action  is 
brought  before  it  by  appeal  by  one-fifth  of  the  members  of  said  body  or 
by  the  general  superintendents.  In  all  cases  the  decision  of  the  Judicial 
Council  shall  be  final ;  provided,  that  if  on  a  constitutional  question  there 
shall  be  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the  General  Conference, 
present  and  voting,  disapproving  a  decision  of  the  Judicial  Council,  its 
construction  of  the  question  involved  shall  then  be  sent  to  the  Annual 
Conferences  for  final  approval  or  disapproval,  as  provided  hereinbefore. 

Sec.  7.  Government. — The  Judicial  Council  shall  prescribe  rules  and 
regulations  for  its  government  and  methods  of  procedure  for  the  hearing 
and  disposition  of  appeals,  which  rules  and  methods  shall  be  printed  in 
the  Discipline,  and  shall  not  be  changed  or  altered  during  the  quadren- 
nium,  without  due  notice. 

Sec.  8.  Quorum. — Two-thirds  of  the  Judicial  Council  shall  constitute 
a  quorum.  Constitutional  matters  shall  be  decided  by  a  majority  vote  of 
the  entire  Judicial  Council.  All  other  appeals  shall  be  decided  by  a  ma- 
jority of  those  present  and  voting. 


Richmond  Meeting 


567 


Sec.  9.  Meetings  During  Quadrennium  — The  Judicial  Council  shall 
meet  at  the  same  time  and  place  as  the  General  Conference  and  shall 
continue  in  session  until  the  final  adjournment  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence; provided,  that  if  during  the  session  of  a  General  Conference  the 
appeal  of  a  bishop  is  pending,  the  Judicial  Council  shall  defer  its  time  of 
adjournment  until  it  disposes  of  said  appeal. 

The  Judicial  Council  shall  convene  during  each  quadrennium  at  such 
times  and  places  as  it  may  deem  necessary  to  hear  and  determine  appeals. 

Sec.  10.  Vacancies. — Vacancies  shall  be  filled  by  the  Judicial  Council 
from  the  same  order  and  jurisdiction  in  which  the  vacancy  occurs,  until 
the  next  meeting  of  the  General  Conference,  which  may  then  fill  the 
vacancy  for  the  balance  of  the  unexpired  term. 

Article  VII.  Amendments. 

The  recommendation  of  two-thirds  of  all  the  members  of  the  several 
Annual  Conferences,  present  and  voting,  shall  suffice  to  authorize  the 
next  ensuing  General  Conference  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  those  members 
present  and  voting,  to  alter  or  amend  any  of  the  provisions  of  this  Con- 
stitution ;  and  also  whenever  such  alteration  or  amendment  shall  have 
been  first  recommended  by  a  General  Conference,  by  a  two-thirds  vote 
of  those  members  present  and  voting,  then  so  soon  as  two-thirds  of  all 
the  members  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences,  present  and  voting,  shall 
have  concurred  therein,  provided  that  such  concurrence  shall  take  place 
previous  to  the  meeting  of  the  next  ensuing  General  Conference,  such 
alteration  or  amendment  shall  take  effect;  and  the  result  of  the  vote  shall 
be  announced  by  the  general  superintendents. 

RECOM  MENDATION. 

We  recommend  that  the  General  Conference  make  an  equitable  pro- 
vision for  the  financial  support  of  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
by  setting  apart  a  designated  amount  or  a  fixed  percentage  of  the  total 
annual  offerings  of  the  reorganized  Church  for  the  support  of  work 
among  colored  people. 


DATE  DUE 

1  1 

CAY  LORD 

PRINTED  IN  U  S  A. 

Princeton 

Theological  Seminar^  Libraries 

1 

1012 

01161  3116 

